i once knew this, really. what's the explanation of that recent
introduction of an extra period after the normal mode bits in the
output from "ls -l"?
rday
--
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Onta
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> i once knew this, really. what's the explanation of that recent
> introduction of an extra period after the normal mode bits in the
> output from "ls -l"?
>
> rday
never mind, found it:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_FAQ#Why_does_ls
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:23 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i once knew this, really. what's the explanation of that recent
> introduction of an extra period after the normal mode bits in the
> output from "ls -l"?
Let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ls+dot+permissions
Bryn.
--
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:23 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i once knew this, really. what's the explanation of that recent
> > introduction of an extra period after the normal mode bits in the
> > output from "ls -l"?
>
> Let me google that for you
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:23 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i once knew this, really. what's the explanation of that recent
> > introduction of an extra period after the normal mode bits in the
> > output from "ls -l"?
>
> Let me google that for you
, November 12, 2009 2:45 PM
To: Community assistance, encouragement,and advice for using Fedora.
Subject: Re: what's with that trailing "." for the mode from "ls -l"
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:23 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:45 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:23 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > i once knew this, really. what's the explanation of that recent
> > > introduction of an extra period after the normal mod
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:45 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:23 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > > i once knew this, really. what's the explanation of that recent
> > >
Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:45 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
[...]
>> a followup question would be, is there an ls option that would
>> *prevent* that security setting character from being printed? i
>> ask since i'm working with a software project (openembedded) that
>
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 08:58 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> that's ok, it was only an issue because of the incredibly hacky way
> that a numeric mode was being reproduced from an existing file -- by
> grabbing the current symbolic mode, then running it through sed to get
> the numeric mode back.
10 matches
Mail list logo