From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 19 22:13:50 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 4855216A4CE for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:13:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.homeunix.com (c-67-174-240-84.client.comcast.net [67.174.240.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC3E43D49 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:13:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.homeunix.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5JMDZ5S001119; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.homeunix.com (8.12.11/8.12.10/Submit) id i5JMDZHS001118; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:13:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:13:34 -0700 From: David Schultz To: Dimitry Andric Message-ID: <20040619221334.GA1062@VARK.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dimitry Andric , Scott Mitchell , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20040619175007.GB462@tuatara.fishballoon.org> <414787887.20040619210137@andric.com> <20040619193545.GC462@tuatara.fishballoon.org> <14210101.20040619220601@andric.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14210101.20040619220601@andric.com> cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Scott Mitchell Subject: Re: /bin/ls sorting bug? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:13:50 -0000 On Sat, Jun 19, 2004, Dimitry Andric wrote: > So, if these fields for two different files are exactly the same, the > resulting sorted list will have an undefined order for all other > fields. And AFAICS, there's no way to tell ls: "first sort on time, > then on filename, then on size", etc. This would make a nice addition > though. :) Umm...sorting on time, then filename, then size is equivalent to sorting on time, then filename. That is, you can't have a tie on the filename field. ;-)