From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 21 12:36:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39DD16A4CE for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:36:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E548A43D39 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:36:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (gbshkj@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5LCZowO060152 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:35:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i5LCZo3Y060151; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:35:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:35:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200406211235.i5LCZo3Y060151@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20040621061652.GA96079@lucky.net> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.5.4-20000523 ("1959") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.10-RELEASE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:08:49 +0000 Subject: Re: /bin/ls sorting bug? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:36:24 -0000 Valentin Nechayev wrote: > Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 02:34:04, andrit wrote about "Re: /bin/ls sorting bug?": > > But there is nice sort command and power of unix. > > Don't you remember the initial UNIX concept to make miracles by small > > things fired together? :) > > Well, let's disable sorting in ls output totally and give this role to sort. > I thinks folks won't adopt this idea, especially said that ls output > isn't easily machine-parseable. That's why I've always wanted an ls flag to output the time stamp in time_t form (i.e. seconds since the epoch). Would make a lot of scripts a lot easier. (Yes, I know we've got "/usr/bin/stat -r", but that's not portable.) Regards Oliver PS: Don't get me wrong; I'm _not_ asking for such a flag to ls, as it wouldn't help for portable scripts. PPS: FWIW, I like the patch (the second one which takes nanoseconds correctly into account). I would also suggest an option to display the nanoseconds in ls -l output. Maybe when -T is specified twice ...? (That way we wouldn't waste yet another letter.) -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "FreeBSD is Yoda, Linux is Luke Skywalker" -- Daniel C. Sobral