On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:41:35AM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked:
> A-HA The 'Info' command, which I also always forget, not least
> because I don't know how to navigate info files.
>
> But this caused me to take another whack at it, and I got along well
> enough to find a mostly
Richard Fish schreef:
> On 1/7/06, Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Don't think I really need the inodes (if that's what they are, I
>
>
> That is "link count". For a regular file, it tells how many hard
> links exist to the file. For a directory, it tells how many files
> are in
On 1/7/06, Holly Bostick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't think I really need the inodes (if that's what they are, I
That is "link count". For a regular file, it tells how many hard
links exist to the file. For a directory, it tells how many files are
in that directory +2, since "." and ".." c
Mariusz Pękala schreef:
> On 2006-01-07 20:01:25 +0100 (Sat, Jan), Holly Bostick wrote:
>
>> Willie Wong schreef:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly
>>> Bostick squawked:
>>>
(how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??)
>>>
>>> Sorry, couldn't
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 09:56:59PM +0100, Penguin Lover Mariusz P?kala squawked:
> info ls, section * Formatting file timestamps::
> " A timestamp is considered to be "recent" if it is less than six
> months old, and is not dated in the future."
>
> and further:
> " For example, `--time-style="+%Y
On 2006-01-07 20:01:25 +0100 (Sat, Jan), Holly Bostick wrote:
> Willie Wong schreef:
> > On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick
> > squawked:
> >
> >> (how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??)
> >
> >
> > Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your pro
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 08:01:25PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked:
> Rather than go off on a rant, I will ask mildly: is there any way to
> change the default behaviour to more reflect my expected behaviour? Not
> so much asking you to tell me how to do it as asking if those of you who
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 08:37:12PM +0100, Penguin Lover Sergio Polini squawked:
> May be, you could add a command-line option ;-)
>
And don't forget to open a bug and send in a patch! =)
W
--
Ugh! It's 1/2 C U ^2, saved by the bell, we've ran out of time.
~Prof. Kirk T. McDonald, DeathEM
Holly Bostick:
> > [...]
> > Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think
> > it is assumed that ls will display the year only for files older
> > than a year old. Quite clever, in my opinion.
>
> OK, I see what you mean-- or maybe I don't:
> [...]
> I see that many files that ar
Willie Wong schreef:
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick
> squawked:
>
>> (how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??)
>
>
> Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think it is
> assumed that ls will display the year only for file
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick squawked:
> (how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??)
Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think it is
assumed that ls will display the year only for files older than a year
old. Quite clever,
11 matches
Mail list logo
