On 2020-07-04, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 19:59, Richard Ipsum <richardip...@vx21.xyz> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Output of ls -R between OpenBSD and GNU coreutils seems to differ, >> OpenBSD ls -R will apparently list "hidden" directories like .git, >> whereas GNU coreutils will not, is this expected behaviour or a bug?
Try "/bin/ls" to avoid the effects of whatever you have "ls" aliased to. > Funny, because this seems to validate what you are reporting: > > oc@OpenBSD:~$ ls -R > oc-backup test > > ./.local/share: > xorg > > ./.local/share/xorg: > Xorg.0.log Xorg.0.log.old > > ./oc-backup: > docs mbox > > ./oc-backup/docs: > bgpd.conf man-todo patch.patch root-mail > bug oc-mail robots.txt sudo.log > > ./test: > dmesg fstab index.html uyiuyi > file fstab.dos ls.ps > file.bak fstab.tr openbsd-tips-wip > file.orig fstab.unix test.wav > ><note the ./.local/share and ./.local/share/xorg> .local is a "hidden" directory (starts with .) .local/share is not Note you do not get a directory listing of .local, only of the contents > > However: > > oc@OpenBSD:~$ mkdir .hidden > oc@OpenBSD:~$ touch .hidden/test-file > oc@OpenBSD:~$ ls -R .hidden is a hidden directory > ><same as above and ./.hidden is not appearing> > > It looks like "ls -R" is showing some hidden directories but not all. > This pretty much all matches between base and coreutils ls as long as they are given the same options. Slight difference in that coreutils print .: on the first line and base ls doesn't.
