[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ls bug?
From: |
hooanon05 |
Subject: |
Re: ls bug? |
Date: |
Mon, 28 May 2007 07:58:26 +0900 |
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
- ls bug?, hooanon05, 2007/05/26
- Re: ls bug?, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/27
- Re: ls bug?,
hooanon05 <=