> i found a probably bug in ls -L (dereference) today, take a look: Thanks for the report. But what you are seeing is not a bug.
> [magma@keymerkur124 /tmp]$ cd /tmp ; touch source ; chmod 000 source ; ln -s source >link > [magma@keymerkur124 /tmp]$ ls -l link ; ls -l source ; ls -Ll link > lrwxrwxrwx 1 magma freebits 6 Mai 22 21:11 link -> source > ---------- 1 magma freebits 0 Mai 22 21:11 source > ---------- 1 magma freebits 0 Mai 22 21:11 link > Why doesn't ls -L print the dereferenced name of the file the link is > pointing? Any reason? The behavior of -L is to dereference the symlink and report on the target of the symlink. But the name is still the same name as you referenced it the first time. In other words it is doing what it is supposed to be doing. It is just not doing what you want it to be doing. > It would be great if it did it, because you can determine a file a > link is pointing to without a extravagant... > ls -l | sed 's,.* -> \(.*\),\1,' > ...or something like that. I think that would confuse a lot of people. Ask it to list foo but instead it lists bar? I will sit back now and see what other people's comments on this are. Bob _______________________________________________ Bug-fileutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-fileutils
