Re: ls.1: incorrect -O flag description

Hi, Thor.

Do you remember what was the original intention behind ls -O?

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 13:16:32 +0200, [email protected] wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 05:35:11AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 21:37:15 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> > 
> > > The -O (not a POSIX one) flag seems incorrectly described in the manual
> > > page.
> > > 
> > > What it does (from a cursory look at the sources, matching the result
> > > of testing), is simply not displaying a supplementary information
> > > about the directory traversed when going recursive.
> > > 
> > > It does not output only leaf (filenames not directory). This is only
> > > the "headline": "\ndir:\n" that is not displayed.
> > > 
> > > Just try:
> > > 
> > > $ ls -OF
> > > 
> > > for example (and combine with -R).
> > > 
> > > What was the intention of the flag? To have an output with just the
> > > names (including directories) without the formatting about the newline
> > > and the dir?
> > 
> > revision 1.71
> > date: 2014-02-20 22:56:36 +0400;  author: christos;  state: Exp;  lines: +18 -8;
> > Add -O (only leaf files) and -P (print full path), from tls@
> > 
> > Seems buggy too
> > 
> > $ mkdir -p 1/2/3/4
> > $ touch 1/2/200
> > $ find .
> > .
> > ./1
> > ./1/2
> > ./1/2/3
> > ./1/2/3/4
> > ./1/2/200
> > $ ls -RPO
> > ./1
> > ./1/2
> > ./1/2/200./1/2/3
> > ./1/2/3/4
> > 
> > Can you file a PR, please? TIA.
> > 
> 
> Done: bin/58740
> 
> And for me the solution is to suppress the flag altogether---what
> the manpage says it is supposed to do can be done with find(1).

-uwe