Re: ls -s documentation misleading

[Matthew Woehlke]

address@hidden wrote:
> The ls -s argument is documented as such:
>
>  ls --help output: 
>   -s, --size                 print the size of each file, in blocks
>
>  LS(1) man page:
>        -s, --size
>               print the size of each file, in blocks
>
> This leads one to expect some sort of relationship between the size
> colum in ls -l output, perhaps with rounding to the nearest block, but
> this is not the case.

I know the info is preferred, but would it be okay to simply 
s/blocks/allocated blocks/? (or "used blocks", or something along those 
lines?) I think it should be possible to make this a bit clearer in a 
way that has an acceptable impact on the length of --help.

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
We are Microsoft. What you are experiencing is not a problem; it is an 
undocumented feature. -- Unknown (from fortune's bofh-excuses)