Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net> writes: > > There have been many changes since the last release (unstable 5.3.0). > So many that I feel 5.90 should also be considered unstable, at least > initially.
There is no mention in NEWS about the additional colorization now available in ls and dircolors. This needs to be fixed, because it has user-visible consequences: I was surprised when my color highlighting of other-writable directories changed, even though my file parsed by dircolors had not. I tracked it back to this change: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-09/msg00023.html I wonder if ls should be providing default colors for file types that are not specified in the LS_COLORS environment variable. For example, since my dircolors file was not edited in the course of my upgrade to 5.90, dircolors never sees the OWR keyword, and LS_COLORS does not have an ow= entry. Yet, ls currently initializes ALL of its categories with defaults, then reads LS_COLORS and only overrides the categories specified in LS_COLORS. Perhaps when LS_COLORS is specified, ls should not pre-initialize any of its categories, so that the only colors are those specified by LS_COLORS and not by ls's defaults. -- Eric Blake _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
