Hi folks,
Chris Costello recently committed (and then backed out at my request) a
change to ls(1) that made -n (numeric ID's instead of names) imply -l
(long format).
The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGroup spec uses -g
for something we don't offer. Our -g is a backward compatibility option.
So my point here relates to -n and -o.
As I mentioned on the PR associated with the addition of the -n
option, taking it to imply -l does nothing but reduce user-interface
flexibility. It prevents me from using this in my .profile
alias ls='ls -n'
to mean
"When I ask for a long listing, show numeric ID's instead of
names. If I don't ask for a long listing, don't give me one."
As far as I'm concerned, we should _not_ be following the OpenGroup
spec's mandate on this issue. I think that -o and -n should continue to
operate as they do in FreeBSD's and NetBSD's ls, to allow the kind of
flexibility suggested above. Ideally, the OpenGroup spec should change.
:-)
So what's my question? How hard should we be trying to stick to the
OpenGroup spec? Whatever we decide should apply to both -n and -o.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
