On Wed, Jan 29 2020 12:25:34 +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > Lauri Tirkkonen([email protected]) on 2020.01.29 01:31:56 +0200: > > On Tue, Jan 28 2020 18:03:19 +0100, Florian Obser wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 09:58:40AM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote: > > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:29:39 -0500, Daniel Jakots wrote: > > > > > > > > > Can't you achieve what you want with `du -sh * | sort -h`? du(1)'s -h > > > > > options will automatically select the best suffix and sort(1)'s -h > > > > > will sort first using the suffix then the numerical value. > > > > > > > > Yes, I forgot about "sort -h". Old habits die hard :-) > > > > > > ... which is not in posix, netbsd nor illumos. > > > > So, do you think that 'du -m' will be in all those then? POSIX doesn't > > have it [0]. > > > > The way I see it, the entire conversation in this thread is about doing > > things that might be useful to people. IMO, arguing about where > > extensions are or aren't implemented isn't productive. > > Yes it is. We try to avoid adding options whereever we can, because > > * every option letter we grab thats not used for the same purpose elsewhere > can crate problems down the road > * more options means more bugs
Yeah, I agree with this completely -- it was in fact kind of my point: why add -m to du, if the usecase it helps with is already handled by sort -h? I think it's a bit of a moot point whether sort -h is supported elsewhere or not. I concede that I was not speaking clearly enough; there might have been some beer that was doing the talking. Apologies for that and for shouting from the gallery :) -- Lauri Tirkkonen | lotheac @ IRCnet
