[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ls -i inefficiency
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: ls -i inefficiency |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:54:47 +0000 |
> Hmmm, won't that break the behavior on dangling symlinks?
Good catch. I was starting to wonder about that myself.
> here's the coreutils 5.94 behavior:
>
> $ mkdir d
> $ cd d
> $ ln -s nowhere x
> $ ls -l
> total 0
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 eggert eggert 7 Feb 26 01:17 x -> nowhere
> $ ls -L
> ls: x: No such file or directory
But the 5.2.1 behavior was different:
$ ls -l
total 0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 ericb cygwin 4 Feb 26 19:41 broken -> none
$ ls -L
broken
$ ls --version | head -n1
ls (coreutils) 5.2.1
>
> I haven't tried the patch, but from your description of it it sounds
> like the output of the last command would be "x", which doesn't sound
> right to me.
What does Solaris 10 do? I'll prepare a patch that adds a testsuite
case for whatever decision we make, and which repairs the regression
if we decide that the 5.94 behavior of warning about an inability to
dereference broken symlinks when -L is in affect is the correct
approach. However, I just reread the POSIX wording, and it is silent
on the matter of broken symlinks as far as I can tell.
--
Eric Blake
- Re: ls -i inefficiency,
Eric Blake <=