Re: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread Vidiot
>Weirder and weirder. I've tried this on RH7 and RH8 and it behaves sanely >(i.e. does NOT follow the symlink) for me. Most definately weird. >What disto are you running, and what version of ls (or fileutils)? RH 7.1 ls (GNU fileutils) 4.0.36 MB -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread Cameron Simpson
On 16:59 01 Mar 2003, Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >And plain "alias"? | | Nothing dealing with ls. This problem happens with root and another user | that I became by using su - (as root). | | >What does: | > | > ln -s /foo bah | > set -vx;ls -l bah; /bin/ls -l bah;set +vx | |

Re: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread Vidiot
>And plain "alias"? Nothing dealing with ls. This problem happens with root and another user that I became by using su - (as root). >What does: > > ln -s /foo bah > set -vx;ls -l bah; /bin/ls -l bah;set +vx + ls -l bah total 3211932 lrwxrwxrwx1 brownusers 4 Mar

Re: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread Cameron Simpson
On 05:10 01 Mar 2003, Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >Sure you're running the real ls, and not some evil presupplied alias? | >Does "/bin/ls" behave the same as "ls"? | >What does the "alias" command recite? | | As far as I know, the real deal. | Yes. | "alias ls" reports nothing. And plain

RE: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread Larry Brown
And Emacs would be bettered by...Vi? Larry S. Brown Dimension Networks, Inc. (727) 723-8388 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dave Ihnat Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ls operation changed I agree

Re: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread Dave Ihnat
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 01:51:32AM -0600, Vidiot wrote: > Please don't say to use "info ls" to see if there is anything in > there. I HATE info. IMHO that is a horrible program. It is extremely > difficult to traverse. It is not obvious how to get around that thing. > Whomever designed that pro

Re: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread ABrady
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 00:55:36 -0600 (CST) Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been noticing this for a while now and it is damn annoying. The > ls command traverses symbolic links if the symbolic link is used as > the filename given to ls. For example, if I do: > > ls -laG sym_filename

Re: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread Vidiot
>Well sure. -L turns _on_ the behaviour you see. Thought I'd try it anyway :-) >Sure you're running the real ls, and not some evil presupplied alias? >Does "/bin/ls" behave the same as "ls"? >What does the "alias" command recite? As far as I know, the real deal. Yes. "alias ls" reports nothing.

Re: ls operation changed

2003-03-01 Thread Cameron Simpson
On 01:51 01 Mar 2003, Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >Do you know about the -d flag? You might try ls -laGd, that | >might get you the behavior you want. | | Yep, neither that or -L made any difference. Well sure. -L turns _on_ the behaviour you see. Sure you're running the real ls, and n

Re: ls operation changed

2003-02-28 Thread Vidiot
>I've got the Gnu fileutils version 4.1 (or so "ls --version" says). ls --version ls (GNU fileutils) 4.0.36 >Do you know about the -d flag? You might try ls -laGd, that >might get you the behavior you want. Yep, neither that or -L made any difference. There must be something in my environment

Re: ls operation changed

2003-02-28 Thread nate
Vidiot said: > Whose brilliant idea was it to change the behavior of ls after all these > years? Or is the RH 7.1 version broken? I like the behavior you see better personally. I tested it on FreeBSD 4.7, SuSE 8.1, Red Hat 7.3, Debian 3.0r1, and.. wait..yes...Solaris 8(sparc). I have a solaris 9