Re: humanize_number(3) for dd(1) summary?

[Jean-Yves Migeon <jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost>]

On 03.12.2010 23:55, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <4CF96CBF.4070601%free.fr@localhost>,
> Jean-Yves Migeon  <jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost> wrote:
>> As there is some discussion regarding command line/usage to make user's
>> life better (or worse?), is there opposition to use humanize_number(3)
>> in dd(1) summary()?
>>
>> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/foobar bs=1g count=1
>> 1+0 records in
>> 1+0 records out
>> 1073741824 bytes transferred in 15.678 secs (68487168 bytes/sec)
>>
>> $ ./dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/foobar bs=1g count=1
>> 1+0 records in
>> 1+0 records out
>> 1073741824 bytes (1,0 GB) transferred in 15.701 secs (65 MB/sec)
> 
> I could not touch the default dd output summary (scripts might be parsing
> it); having said that, a conv=something to enable the output would be fine.

"conv" is for controlling conversion done by dd(1) between stdin and
stdout no? Is it really clean to use it for controlling stderr output?

I can mimic what ls(1), df(1), du(1), ... do and add a "-h" flag to have
a "human readable" summary.

-- 
Jean-Yves Migeon
jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost