From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Aug 23  1: 0:10 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id F421214D49; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from green@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost (green@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA34473;
	Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from green@FreeBSD.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: green owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org>
To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: ls(1) options affecting -l long format
In-Reply-To: <45946.935392760@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908230052080.28254-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:

> 
> 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.

Yes, I agree that that's what it means.

> 
> 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'

This makes no sense.

> 
> 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."

The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking
for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be
using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n
where you'd otherwise use ls -l.

> 
> 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.
> :-)

The above is not flexibility; it's just different behavior. We need to
follow their specifications so things can be portable.

> 
> 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 majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> 

-- 
 Brian Fundakowski Feldman           /  "Any sufficiently advanced bug is    \
 green@FreeBSD.org                   |   indistinguishable from a feature."  |
     FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!    \        -- Rich Kulawiec               /



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message