On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 07:59:32PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> I think this is a case where being less specific is more valuable:
> being less specific conveys a feeling to the reader that the output
> is mainly intended for human consumption.

Seems reasonable.

Any half sensible script that was parsing dates from ls(1) would surely be
using -T together with -l, (or -g, or -n), anyway, so the 'mmm dd HH:MM' would
not even apply in that case.

I wonder if the 'see also' section should include a reference to stat(1),
since ls(1) doesn't provide an option equivalent to -P in df(1), for obvious
consumption by scripts.