Re: ls colors oddity

2003-01-12 Thread Seneca
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:08:17AM +0800, csj wrote: > On my system the colors printed by a simple "ls" (actually an > alias for "ls --color=auto") differ from the colors when the > command is qualified by a file name or wildcard, say, "ls -d *" > or "ls configure". > > With either "ls -d *" or "l

Re: ls colors oddity

2003-01-12 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:08:17AM +0800, csj wrote: > On my system the colors printed by a simple "ls" (actually an > alias for "ls --color=auto") differ from the colors when the > command is qualified by a file name or wildcard, say, "ls -d *" > or "ls configure". > > With either "ls -d *" or "l

Re: ls colors oddity

2003-01-12 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:08:17 +0800, csj wrote: > On my system the colors printed by a simple "ls" (actually an > alias for "ls --color=auto") differ from the colors when the > command is qualified by a file name or wildcard, say, "ls -d *" > or "ls configure". > > With either "ls -d *" or "ls

ls colors oddity

2003-01-12 Thread csj
On my system the colors printed by a simple "ls" (actually an alias for "ls --color=auto") differ from the colors when the command is qualified by a file name or wildcard, say, "ls -d *" or "ls configure". With either "ls -d *" or "ls configure", the file name "configure" is printed out in green.