Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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.
I don't feel strongly about this either way. > 2005-10-13 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (tiny change) > > * NEWS: Document dircolors change of 2005-09-05. Applied. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
