Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:13:28 -0400 From: Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> not all 'ls' programs are consistent about whether they show user+group or user alone. Yes, but the code compensates for that problem -- see the bit just after the "group was omitted" comment. On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 01:44:14PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > set X `ls -l "$file"` > case "$6" in > [0-9]*) > size=$6;; > *) > # We are on a non-POSIX host and the group was omitted, > # or the user overflowed into the group. > size=$5;; > esac
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Mo DeJong
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Mo DeJong
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Assar Westerlund
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Thomas Dickey
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Paul Eggert
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Thomas Dickey
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Paul Eggert
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Thomas Dickey
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Akim Demaille
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Thomas E. Dickey
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Mo DeJong
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not very rob... Assar Westerlund
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Akim Demaille
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ver... Alexandre Oliva