rbp@investor.pgh.pa.us (Bob Peirce #305) (05/13/91)
Neither ls -L nor ls -lL are producing output to show symbolic links. Are they broken or is there another command I should be using? -- Bob Peirce, Pittsburgh, PA rbp@investor.pgh.pa.us 412-471-5320 venetia@investor.pgh.pa.us [NeXT Mail] ...!uunet!pitt!investor!rbp [UUCP]
das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Douglas A Scott) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May13.013701.21135@investor.pgh.pa.us> rbp@investor.pgh.pa.us (Bob Peirce #305) writes: >Neither ls -L nor ls -lL are producing output to show symbolic links. >Are they broken or is there another command I should be using? Not only do they not show links, but it seems that that field in the output is used to to the number of subdirectories below a given directory. Wonder if that is documented somewhere... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas Scott Columbia University Computer Music Studio Internet: <doug@woof.columbia.edu> <das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu> UUCP: ...!columbia!woof!zardoz!doug Phone: (703)765-4771
cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.155119.26819@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Douglas A Scott) writes: In article <1991May13.013701.21135@investor.pgh.pa.us> rbp@investor.pgh.pa.us (Bob Peirce #305) writes: >Neither ls -L nor ls -lL are producing output to show symbolic links. >Are they broken or is there another command I should be using? Not only do they not show links, but it seems that that field in the output is used to to the number of subdirectories below a given directory. Wonder if that is documented somewhere... If you want to see your symbolic links, use ls -l (ell). -- "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") (05/15/91)
cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes: > Not only do they not show links, but it seems that that field in the > output is used to to the number of subdirectories below a given > directory. Wonder if that is documented somewhere... It *is* the number of links! This is because the subdirectories' ".." file is a hard link to the parent directory, and thus gets counted for the ls -[lL] display. > If you want to see your symbolic links, use ls -l (ell). Good advice. "ls -l" is much more interesting. -- -- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <fche@db.toronto.edu> --
glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) (05/15/91)
Bob Peirce #305 writes > Neither ls -L nor ls -lL are producing output to show symbolic links. > Are they broken or is there another command I should be using? ls -L *follows* symbolic links, it doesn't show them. Just plain old ls -l will show you the links. -- Glenn Reid RightBrain Software glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us NeXT/PostScript developers ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-326-2974 (NeXTfax 326-2977)