[gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked: (how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??) Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think it is assumed that ls will display the year only for files older than a year old. Quite clever, in my opinion. Of course, you can also pass it the --full-time option, but the result gets rather ugly: [01:09 PM]wwong lunar-2.1 $ ls -l total 96 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root91 Aug 11 1992 Makefile -rwxr-xr-x 1 wwong root 27121 Jul 14 21:53 lunar -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 2938 Aug 11 1992 lunar.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 1731 Jun 21 1991 lunar.bitmap -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 18447 Aug 11 1992 lunar.c -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 22096 Jul 14 21:53 lunar.o -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 11140 Aug 11 1992 tables.h [01:09 PM]wwong lunar-2.1 $ ls --full-time total 96 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root91 1992-08-11 00:14:48.0 -0400 Makefile -rwxr-xr-x 1 wwong root 27121 2005-07-14 21:53:10.0 -0400 lunar -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 2938 1992-08-11 00:14:48.0 -0400 lunar.1 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 1731 1991-06-21 02:35:16.0 -0400 lunar.bitmap -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 18447 1992-08-11 00:14:48.0 -0400 lunar.c -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 22096 2005-07-14 21:53:09.0 -0400 lunar.o -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 11140 1992-08-11 00:14:48.0 -0400 tables.h HTH, W -- One man's vacuum is another man's sewer. ~N. Milleron Sortir en Pantoufles: up 56 days, 10:27 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem
Willie Wong schreef: On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked: (how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??) Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think it is assumed that ls will display the year only for files older than a year old. Quite clever, in my opinion. OK, I see what you mean-- or maybe I don't: la ~/docs/ totaal 3714 drwxrwxr-x 15 motub somegroup1136 okt 28 00:56 . drwxrwxr-x 16 motub somegroup1720 nov 21 02:46 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup 1292758 okt 18 20:17 autosc102.exe drwxr-xr-x 6 motub somegroup 192 okt 30 15:25 books -r-xr-xr-x 1 motub somegroup2778 jan 27 2003 Buddies.xml drwxrwxr-x 2 motub somegroup1216 jan 6 22:42 cmds -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub somegroup 581 jan 31 2005 computeruniverse_rma.txt drwxrwxr-x 5 motub somegroup3192 nov 21 16:55 config -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub somegroup3904 nov 3 2004 depclean_data.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup 204 sep 27 17:40 general_cvs.txt drwxrwxr-x 3 motub somegroup1360 sep 6 23:23 hardware_man drwxrwxr-x 10 motub somegroup 528 apr 26 2005 +hb_pers drwxrwxr-x 6 motub somegroup3448 apr 26 2005 infodocs -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub somegroup 56 nov 3 2004 install_notes.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup 99957 okt 18 20:17 Manual.pdf drwxrwxr-x 2 motub somegroup 240 sep 4 17:45 misc drwxrwxr-x 3 motub somegroup1320 dec 9 21:46 miscpost drwxrwxr-x 8 motub somegroup5808 mei 29 2005 misctech -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup1661 jul 13 13:52 more_what works.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup1410 jul 2 2005 more_what works.txt~ drwxrwxr-x 2 motub somegroup3360 okt 19 01:38 my_scripts -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup 262 okt 4 17:03 new_wine_install_notes.txt drwxrwxr-x 2 motub somegroup2312 dec 24 15:42 output -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub somegroup5351 nov 6 2004 readme-queen.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub somegroup 50744 nov 6 2004 README-scummvm.txt drwxr-xr-- 2 motub somegroup 120 okt 18 20:41 registry drwx-- 2 motub somegroup 112 jun 15 2005 .Trash-motub -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup 75612 jun 16 2005 what_works.html I see that many files that are more than a year old then are followed by the year, but some are not, and some which are less than a year old are followed by a year. -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup1661 jul 13 13:52 more_what works.txt (this must have been created in 2005) but this file is less than a year old and is still fully dated: -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub somegroup 581 jan 31 2005 computeruniverse_rma.txt But even leaving aside the inconsistencies (only for the purposes of this discussion), this is not the behaviour I expect or in fact desire. I normally expect the year to be displayed whenever the current calendar year is different from that associated with the file-- thus, if the file was created in 2006, I would not expect the year to be shown, but if it was created in 2005, I would expect the year to be shown, whether or not the current date was one year or more from the month and day that the file was created. Rather than go off on a rant, I will ask mildly: is there any way to change the default behaviour to more reflect my expected behaviour? Not so much asking you to tell me how to do it as asking if those of you who have already read man ls whether there is a solution to be found when I have the time to read it myself. Thanks, Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem
Holly Bostick:
[...]
Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think
it is assumed that ls will display the year only for files older
than a year old. Quite clever, in my opinion.
OK, I see what you mean-- or maybe I don't:
[...]
I see that many files that are more than a year old then are
followed by the year, but some are not, and some which are less
than a year old are followed by a year.
Why bother?
Untar coreutils and look at src/ls.c:
static char const *long_time_format[2] =
{
/* strftime format for non-recent files (older than 6 months), in
-l output when --time-style=locale is specified. This should
contain the year, month and day (at least), in an order that is
understood by people in your locale's territory.
Please try to keep the number of used screen columns small,
because many people work in windows with only 80 columns. But
make this as wide as the other string below, for recent files.*/
N_(%b %e %Y),
/* strftime format for recent files (younger than 6 months), in
-l output when --time-style=locale is specified. This should
contain the month, day and time (at least), in an order that is
understood by people in your locale's territory.
Please try to keep the number of used screen columns small,
because many people work in windows with only 80 columns. But
make this as wide as the other string above, for non-recent
files. */
N_(%b %e %H:%M)
};
But even leaving aside the inconsistencies (only for the purposes of
this discussion), this is not the behaviour I expect or in fact
desire. I normally expect the year to be displayed whenever the
current calendar year is different from that associated with the
file-- thus, if the file was created in 2006, I would not expect the
year to be shown, but if it was created in 2005, I would expect the
year to be shown, whether or not the current date was one year or
more from the month and day that the file was created.
The code you should change is here:
static void print_long_format (const struct fileinfo *f) {
char modebuf[12];
if ((when_local = localtime (when)))
{
time_t six_months_ago;
int recent;
char const *fmt;
/* If the file appears to be in the future, update the current
time, in case the file happens to have been modified since
the last time we checked the clock. */
if (current_time when
|| (current_time == when current_time_ns when_ns))
{
/* Note that get_current_time calls gettimeofday which, on some non-
compliant systems, clobbers the buffer used for localtime's result.
But it's ok here, because we use a gettimeofday wrapper that
saves and restores the buffer around the gettimeofday call. */
get_current_time ();
}
/* Consider a time to be recent if it is within the past six
months. A Gregorian year has 365.2425 * 24 * 60 * 60 ==
31556952 seconds on the average. Write this value as an
integer constant to avoid floating point hassles. */
six_months_ago = current_time - 31556952 / 2;
recent = (six_months_ago = when
(when current_time
|| (when == current_time when_ns = current_time_ns)));
fmt = long_time_format[recent];
}
May be, you could add a command-line option ;-)
HTH
Sergio
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 08:37:12PM +0100, Penguin Lover Sergio Polini squawked: May be, you could add a command-line option ;-) And don't forget to open a bug and send in a patch! =) W -- Ugh! It's 1/2 C U ^2, saved by the bell, we've ran out of time. ~Prof. Kirk T. McDonald, DeathEM, P-town PHY 304 Sortir en Pantoufles: up 56 days, 13:05 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 08:01:25PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked: Rather than go off on a rant, I will ask mildly: is there any way to change the default behaviour to more reflect my expected behaviour? Not so much asking you to tell me how to do it as asking if those of you who have already read man ls whether there is a solution to be found when I have the time to read it myself. No command line option is listed in `man ls' But you could, theoretically, with some awk magic, invoke ls --full-time, chop it up, use `date' to put the date into a format you prefer, and put it back together. W -- This class makes me feel like Ralph Wiggam... ~DeathMech, Some Student. P-town PHY 205 Sortir en Pantoufles: up 56 days, 13:06 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem
On 2006-01-07 20:01:25 +0100 (Sat, Jan), Holly Bostick wrote: Willie Wong schreef: On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked: (how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??) Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think it is assumed that ls will display the year only for files older than a year old. Quite clever, in my opinion. OK, I see what you mean-- or maybe I don't: I see that many files that are more than a year old then are followed by the year, but some are not, and some which are less than a year old are followed by a year. -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup1661 jul 13 13:52 more_what works.txt (this must have been created in 2005) but this file is less than a year old and is still fully dated: -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub somegroup 581 jan 31 2005 computeruniverse_rma.txt But even leaving aside the inconsistencies (only for the purposes of this discussion), this is not the behaviour I expect or in fact desire. I normally expect the year to be displayed whenever the current calendar year is different from that associated with the file-- thus, if the file was created in 2006, I would not expect the year to be shown, but if it was created in 2005, I would expect the year to be shown, whether or not the current date was one year or more from the month and day that the file was created. It's a matter of taste, but I would rather keep this historical behaviour. On January the 1st you would see tiestamps from yesterday similiar to the 'very-old-ones'. Rather than go off on a rant, I will ask mildly: is there any way to change the default behaviour to more reflect my expected behaviour? Not so much asking you to tell me how to do it as asking if those of you who have already read man ls whether there is a solution to be found when I have the time to read it myself. info ls, section * Formatting file timestamps:: A timestamp is considered to be recent if it is less than six months old, and is not dated in the future. and further: For example, `--time-style=+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S' causes... HTH -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by grep -i virus $MESSAGE pgpspS7m4PXuO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 09:56:59PM +0100, Penguin Lover Mariusz P?kala squawked: info ls, section * Formatting file timestamps:: A timestamp is considered to be recent if it is less than six months old, and is not dated in the future. and further: For example, `--time-style=+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S' causes... HTH grrr... curse gnu info. For some reason I *never* remember to look there. Now, if only fvwm has a easily navigable info page instead of the big man page... W -- Ford grabbed him by the lapels of his dressing gown and spoke to him as slowly and distinctly and patiently as if he were somebody from a telephone company accounts department. - Ford trying to rectify that situation. Sortir en Pantoufles: up 56 days, 14:29 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem [Date issue SOLVED]
Mariusz Pękala schreef: On 2006-01-07 20:01:25 +0100 (Sat, Jan), Holly Bostick wrote: Willie Wong schreef: On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked: (how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??) Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think it is assumed that ls will display the year only for files older than a year old. Quite clever, in my opinion. snip But even leaving aside the inconsistencies (only for the purposes of this discussion), this is not the behaviour I expect or in fact desire. I normally expect the year to be displayed whenever the current calendar year is different from that associated with the file snip Rather than go off on a rant, I will ask mildly: is there any way to change the default behaviour to more reflect my expected behaviour? info ls, section * Formatting file timestamps:: A-HA The 'Info' command, which I also always forget, not least because I don't know how to navigate info files. But this caused me to take another whack at it, and I got along well enough to find a mostly acceptable way to reform the la alias to the following: alias la=ls --color -lAGbh --time-style='+%b %d %Y %H:%M' which produces zo 01/08/06 02:25 ~/docs motub - la totaal 3,7M -rw-r--r-- 1 motub 1,3M okt 18 2005 20:17 autosc102.exe drwxr-xr-x 6 motub 192 okt 30 2005 15:25 books -r-xr-xr-x 1 motub 2,8K jan 27 2003 01:05 Buddies.xml drwxrwxr-x 2 motub 1,2K jan 06 2006 22:42 cmds -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub 581 jan 31 2005 15:36 computeruniverse_rma.txt drwxrwxr-x 5 motub 3,2K nov 21 2005 16:55 config -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub 3,9K nov 03 2004 19:18 depclean_data.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 motub 204 sep 27 2005 17:40 general_cvs.txt drwxrwxr-x 3 motub 1,4K sep 06 2005 23:23 hardware_man drwxrwxr-x 10 motub 528 apr 26 2005 01:30 +hb_pers drwxrwxr-x 6 motub 3,4K apr 26 2005 01:29 infodocs -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub 56 nov 03 2004 15:47 install_notes.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 motub 98K okt 18 2005 20:17 Manual.pdf drwxrwxr-x 2 motub 240 sep 04 2005 17:45 misc drwxrwxr-x 3 motub 1,3K dec 09 2005 21:46 miscpost drwxrwxr-x 8 motub 5,7K mei 29 2005 16:32 misctech -rw-r--r-- 1 motub 1,7K jul 13 2005 13:52 more_what\ works.txt -rw-r--r-- 1 motub 1,4K jul 02 2005 02:24 more_what\ works.txt~ drwxrwxr-x 2 motub 3,3K okt 19 2005 01:38 my_scripts -rw-r--r-- 1 motub 262 okt 04 2005 17:03 new_wine_install_notes.txt -rwxrwxr-x 1 motub 2,6K jul 01 2004 20:28 nfo.nfo drwxrwxr-x 2 motub 2,3K dec 24 2005 15:42 output -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub 5,3K nov 06 2004 02:48 readme-queen.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub 50K nov 06 2004 02:48 README-scummvm.txt drwxr-xr-- 2 motub 120 okt 18 2005 20:41 registry drwx-- 2 motub 112 jun 15 2005 14:55 .Trash-motub -rw-r--r-- 1 motub 74K jun 16 2005 17:24 what_works.html which is much more informative for me with 1) the group names removed and 2) a more comprehensive and comprehensible date and size display. Don't think I really need the inodes (if that's what they are, I couldn't quite deciper info ls that far) before the owner name, but I can live with that. The output doesn't even wrap in T-bird anymore, it's so compact :D . Anyway, not quite what I asked for, but it will definitely do. And I kinda learned how to use info. Thanks for all the help! Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem [Date issue SOLVED]
On 1/7/06, Holly Bostick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't think I really need the inodes (if that's what they are, I That is link count. For a regular file, it tells how many hard links exist to the file. For a directory, it tells how many files are in that directory +2, since . and .. count as links. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem [Date issue SOLVED]
Richard Fish schreef: On 1/7/06, Holly Bostick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't think I really need the inodes (if that's what they are, I That is link count. For a regular file, it tells how many hard links exist to the file. For a directory, it tells how many files are in that directory +2, since . and .. count as links. -Richard Oh, thanks. They *are* useful then (not that everything isn't useful, but I guess I mean to me), so I'll eye them with more respect in the future. :-) Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ls date was: Bizarre etc/cfg-update problem [Date issue SOLVED]
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:41:35AM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked: A-HA The 'Info' command, which I also always forget, not least because I don't know how to navigate info files. But this caused me to take another whack at it, and I got along well enough to find a mostly acceptable way to reform the la alias to the following: alias la=ls --color -lAGbh --time-style='+%b %d %Y %H:%M' How about alias ls='ls --color --time-style=+%b %d %Y %H:%M' Really no need to link a command you are so familiar with to another name. [10:30 PM]wwong Sanskrit CD $ alias ls='ls --color --time-style=+%b %d %Y %H:%M' [10:30 PM]wwong Sanskrit CD $ ls track01.mp3 track03.mp3 track05.mp3 track07.mp3 track09.mp3 track02.mp3 track04.mp3 track06.mp3 track08.mp3 [10:31 PM]wwong Sanskrit CD $ ls -l total 141484 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 45646253 Sep 13 2004 00:41 track01.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 5120539 Sep 13 2004 00:42 track02.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 7508899 Sep 13 2004 00:44 track03.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 10678627 Sep 13 2004 00:46 track04.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 8695930 Sep 13 2004 00:48 track05.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 17730432 Dec 11 2004 08:57 track06.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 16987392 Dec 11 2004 08:58 track07.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 14897664 Dec 11 2004 09:01 track08.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 wwong root 17447040 Dec 11 2004 09:03 track09.mp3 W -- I'll get to something useful in a moment. ~DeathMech, S. Sondhi. P-town PHY 205 Sortir en Pantoufles: up 56 days, 19:48 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
