Can anyone tell me where the color coding for the ls command in Ubuntu
is stored and defined? For example, I've got a directory with black
lettering and a green background, but only for
$ ls -l foo/
not for
$ ls foo/
Most of these codes are obvious, but this one has me baffled and I would
In Ubuntu, ls is aliased to ls --color=auto (you can see this for
yourself by doing type ls) So the colour behaviour is up to how the
ls binary reacts to that option, I suppose. Take a look at man ls,
but I find it strange that the colours are different in the long
listing.
David
On 4/21/07,
On 4/21/07, david [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone tell me where the color coding for the ls command in Ubuntu
is stored and defined? For example, I've got a directory with black
lettering and a green background, but only for
$ ls -l foo/
not for
$ ls foo/
Most of these codes are
On 4/21/07, DaZZa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, at a guess, look at your environment set | grep LS_COLORS and
look for the two conditions you're having troubles with. Or run
dircolors --print-database | less to see how it's setup.
Of course, this assumes that Debian stuff does something similar
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 06:04:39PM +1000, david wrote:
Most of these codes are obvious, but this one has me baffled and I would
like to know where they are defined. (I suspect it has to do with being
world writeable).
man dircolors
--
To the extent that we overreact, we proffer the
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:36:49 +1000
DaZZa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/21/07, DaZZa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, at a guess, look at your environment set | grep LS_COLORS and
look for the two conditions you're having troubles with. Or run
dircolors --print-database | less to see how it's
