In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just checked, 4.1 has already all support. Sorry for confusion.
I see. But, anyway, "ls (coreutils) 4.5.4" has a bug. If this version of "ls" is already widely spread, shouldn't Emacs pay special attention to such a buggy "ls"? Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems more useful to count in characters (assuming they're > decodable), but the problem remains that it's now broken on current > systems. If there are incompatible versions of ls, I think you have > to check `ls --version' to decide what to do. I don't know the relation of "ls (coreutils)" and "ls (fileutils)". Does anyone know how to detect a buggy "ls"? --- Ken'ichi HANDA [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
