Thanks for the reply. Paul Eggert: > For every line of info 'ls' can't determine due to permissions issues, > 'ls' prints a diagnostic; it also prints '?' for the unknown info. > 'ls' eventually exits with status 1. The '?'s are not garbage: they > are standins for unknown information.
Let me make sure, - ls(1) should exit with an error in this case. - v5.97 didn't exit with the error, it was a bug. > Perhaps the current behavior is confusing and could be improved, but > surely it wouldn't be wise for 'ls' to be silent in such a situation: > 'ls' should let the user know there's a problem, and it should output > the best information that it can. It is verbose to print '?' to stdout since the error message is printed out to stderr and the exit status is non-zero, isn't it? Junjiro Okajima _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
