cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> 
>>>* do other implementations do this?

No, not that I know of.

> 
> Uh, in my world, "easy scripting" means:
> 
> * creating scripts that are portable, and

True, -g wouldn't be that portable.

> * knowing, when you're scripting, which options you should use and
>   where they should work.

Also true.

> As far as I can tell, not even GNU 'du' has a -g option.

Yeah, but GNU du(1) has options we do not have, and we have options GNU
du(1) does not have. But yes, I see the point.

> "BLOCKSIZE=xxx du ..."  is much more portable -- easier by the points
> above, too -- than du -g.

Yes, just thought it would be a neat feature.

> "du ..." then some expression assuming 512 byte blocks is probably
> even more portable.
> 
> It's not substantially more difficult to do _any_ of these conversions
> in a script.  If this is for scripting's sake then IMO it's not just
> "not a good idea" it's a fairly bad one.

Yeah, I'm dropping this idea for now. Thanks for the comments, when you
figure out ideas in a hurry you get stuck in you're own perspective.


// Mattias

-- 
Mattias Karlsson
mattias.karlsson@sergei.cc
SysAdm - http://www.sergei.cc/