[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: > One of the folks at work called to my attention that 'ls -Fl' prints > identifying characters at the end of the file for everything but not > for a symlink. > > lrwxrwxr-x 1 rwp esl 3 Jul 5 23:02 bar1 -> foo > lrwxrwxr-x 1 rwp esl 7 Jul 5 23:09 bar2 -> somedir/
As I recall, the final type indicator is intended to tell you the type of the ultimate referent -- that is, the result of `stat'ing the symlink. > The docs say: > > `-F' > `--classify' > `--indicator-style=classify' > Append a character to each file name indicating the file type. > Also, for regular files that are executable, append `*'. The file > type indicators are `/' for directories, `@' for symbolic links, > `|' for FIFOs, `=' for sockets, and nothing for regular files. Do > not follow symbolic links listed on the command line unless the > `--dereference-command-line' (`-H'), `--dereference' (`-L'), or > `--dereference-command-line-symlink-to-dir' options are specified. > > That seems to say an @ should be there. I guess I would expect this. > > lrwxrwxr-x 1 rwp esl 3 Jul 5 23:02 bar1@ -> foo > lrwxrwxr-x 1 rwp esl 7 Jul 5 23:09 bar2@ -> somedir/ > > I can't say I have ever missed having that on a 'ls -l' listing. I > also note that the HP-UX behaves exactly the same as GNU ls in this > regard. So it is probably fine. Is it? I think that such an `@' would be redundant, coming just before the `->' indicator. Solaris 5.9's /bin/ls also does not display the `@' there. Why waste valuable screen real estate? > I am impressed that it printed the classifier on the value of the > symlink, however. That is above and beyond. :-) BTW the @ is missing > from the value of the symlink too if the symlink is pointing to > another symlink. I suppose it might make sense to put an @ (or some other indicator) there to indicate it's a dangling symlink, but would it be worth it? _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
