Hello Bob,
Friday, May 24, 2002, 6:23:31 AM, you wrote:
>> i found a probably bug in ls -L (dereference) today, take a look:
BP> Thanks for the report. But what you are seeing is not a bug.
-- Yes, actually I have thought it, but I have not been seeing the
sense about it.
>> [...]
>> Why doesn't ls -L print the dereferenced name of the file the link is
>> pointing? Any reason?
BP> The behavior of -L is to dereference the symlink and report on the
BP> target of the symlink. But the name is still the same name as you
BP> referenced it the first time. In other words it is doing what it is
BP> supposed to be doing. It is just not doing what you want it to be
BP> doing.
-- Okay. But then the manpage is lacking a bit:
-snip-
-L, --dereference
list entries pointed to by symbolic links
-snap-
So tell me, what do you designate as a list entry? The name isn't an
entry?
>> It would be great if it did it, because you can determine a file a
>> link is pointing to [...]
BP> I think that would confuse a lot of people. Ask it to list foo but
BP> instead it lists bar? I will sit back now and see what other people's
BP> comments on this are.
-- The actual problem is to find out what is wanted. `find -follow'
does the same as `ls -L', because they handle a link as a
own file and not just as a link to a file (or dir) by means that
the link would have to be resolved if it was handled as a link.
In fact i can not express it with words, it's just a kind of flavour
what a link is actual.
--
cheers,
To*hoping it was understandable*bias
http://freebits.org
_______________________________________________
Bug-fileutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-fileutils
