Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On 2021-06-23 22:47:40 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2021-06-23 21:24:43 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > Is this a new issue? > > I don't know. The machine had been reinstalled in January. But > since this reinstallation, I haven't tried to log in until today > (I was using it only via job s

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On 2021-06-23 21:24:43 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Is this a new issue? I don't know. The machine had been reinstalled in January. But since this reinstallation, I haven't tried to log in until today (I was using it only via job submissions). -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web:

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On Mi, 23 iun 21, 16:43:51, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2021-06-23 10:27:01 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:59:51PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > $ ls /etc/systemd > > > ls: cannot open directory '/etc/systemd': No such file or directory > > > > > > Any explanat

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

Vincent Lefevre writes: > On a Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) machine: > > $ ls -ld /etc/systemd > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 2021-04-19 09:40:41 /etc/systemd > $ ls /etc/systemd > ls: cannot open directory '/etc/systemd': No such file or directory > > Any explanation??? snowball:776$ ls -ld /etc/sy

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On 2021-06-23 10:27:01 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:59:51PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On a Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) machine: > > > > $ ls -ld /etc/systemd > > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 2021-04-19 09:40:41 /etc/systemd > > The "0" here is suspicious, and woul

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

Vincent Lefevre (12021-06-23): > And while I'm at it, "strace" gives: > > [...] > stat("/etc/systemd", {st_mode=S_IFDIR|0755, st_size=0, ...}) = 0 > openat(AT_FDCWD, "/etc/systemd", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_CLOEXEC|O_DIRECTORY) = > -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) > [...] > > So, on the same d

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On 2021-06-23 16:26:10 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2021-06-23 10:11:57 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > > It could be useful to check on this with other tools. For a start, what > > does > > > > $ stat /etc/systemd/ > > > > report? > > File: /etc/systemd/ > Size: 0 Blocks: 8

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On 2021-06-23 at 10:26, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2021-06-23 10:11:57 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2021-06-23 at 09:59, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> >>> On a Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) machine: >>> >>> $ ls -ld /etc/systemd >>> drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 2021-04-19 09:40:41 /etc/systemd >>>

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:59:51PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On a Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) machine: > > $ ls -ld /etc/systemd > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 2021-04-19 09:40:41 /etc/systemd The "0" here is suspicious, and would be an indicator of wrongness if this is ext4. What type of fil

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On 2021-06-23 10:11:57 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-06-23 at 09:59, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On a Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) machine: > > > > $ ls -ld /etc/systemd > > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 2021-04-19 09:40:41 /etc/systemd > > $ ls /etc/systemd > > ls: cannot open directory '/etc

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On 2021-06-23 10:02:01 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Is the result the same if you specify /bin/ls? Yes: $ /bin/ls /etc/systemd /bin/ls: cannot open directory '/etc/systemd': No such file or directory > I am wondering if 'ls' might be an alias in your shell with some > strange option(s) def

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:59:51PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On a Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) machine: > > $ ls -ld /etc/systemd > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 2021-04-19 09:40:41 /etc/systemd > $ ls /etc/systemd > ls: cannot open directory '/etc/systemd': No such file or directory > > Any exp

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

On 2021-06-23 at 09:59, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On a Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) machine: > > $ ls -ld /etc/systemd > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 2021-04-19 09:40:41 /etc/systemd > $ ls /etc/systemd > ls: cannot open directory '/etc/systemd': No such file or directory > > Any explanation??? On a

Re: ls -la sort order

On 10/3/18, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Lee wrote: >> >> Sure - I can understand some people wanting A a to sort together. But >> ignoring non-alpha characters when sorting??? Eventually I'm sure I >> can get used to >> Music >> old >> Pictures >>

Re: ls -la sort order

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Lee wrote: > > Sure - I can understand some people wanting A a to sort together. But > ignoring non-alpha characters when sorting??? Eventually I'm sure I > can get used to > Music > old > Pictures > > but this order is obnoxious > .mozilla >

Re: ls -la sort order

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Lee wrote: > I don't think I'll ever get used to that. I'm just a bit concerned > that setting LC_COLLATE=C is going to break something & I'll have a > heck of a time figuring out it was because I changed the sort order. As a user, it's your prerogative t

Re: ls -la sort order

On 10/3/18, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:31:01PM -0400, Lee wrote: >> >> interesting... I get different results for 'ls [D-M]*' if LC_COLLATE=C >> or LC_COLLATE=en_US.utf8 >> > Think of it this way: > > en_US.utf8 -> sort in alphabetical order > C -> sort in ASCII-betical

Re: ls -la sort order

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:31:01PM -0400, Lee wrote: > > interesting... I get different results for 'ls [D-M]*' if LC_COLLATE=C > or LC_COLLATE=en_US.utf8 > Think of it this way: en_US.utf8 -> sort in alphabetical order C -> sort in ASCII-betical order In ASCII, all of the capital letters prece

Re: ls -la sort order

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:31:01PM -0400, Lee wrote: > I'm guessing no since I don't know how to create a filename with a > non-ascii character :) This may/may not apply to you, but someone reading the archives may be interested: In X, you can type characters that are a superset of what's on your

Re: ls -la sort order

On 10/3/18, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:07:04AM -0400, Lee wrote: >> I can fix the problem by aliasing ls to 'LC_COLLATE=C ls' but that >> seems klunky and would only fix ls (and not break anything else). How >> bad of an idea would it be to set >> LC_COLLATE=C >> in my .

Re: ls -la sort order

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:07:04AM -0400, Lee wrote: > I can fix the problem by aliasing ls to 'LC_COLLATE=C ls' but that > seems klunky and would only fix ls (and not break anything else). How > bad of an idea would it be to set > LC_COLLATE=C > in my .bashrc or is there some other setting to

Re: ls -l / question in jessie

On Mon 28 Nov 2016 at 11:40:55 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 08:10:04AM -0800, emetib wrote: > > why do the sym links in ls -l / point to /boot/ and boot/ > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root31 Jun 3 10:34 initrd.img -> > > /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64 > > lrwxrwxrwx

Re: ls -l / question in jessie

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 08:10:04AM -0800, emetib wrote: > why do the sym links in ls -l / point to /boot/ and boot/ > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root31 Jun 3 10:34 initrd.img -> > /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root27 Jun 3 10:34 vmlinuz -> > boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd

No, Virginia, there is no such think as a dangling hard link (Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???)

Well, at least, if you have a dangling hard link, the file system itself is broken. And it would not be the normal kind of breakage, at all. rm will not actually de-allocate a file until all hard links have been rm-ed, in file systems where multiple hard links are allowed. That is, when you first

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

You need to install 32 compat libs to run 32 binaries. Eero 3.5.2014 5.26 kirjoitti "Tom Roche" : > > For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), see > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 > > But the essence of the problem appears to

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

Ralf Mardorf wrote, on 05/04/2014 01:55: > On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 01:53 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 01:05 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > $ touch x > $ ln -s x firefox-bin >> >> JFTR >> >> I guess your intention was >> >> ln -s firefox-bin x >> >> ;). > > Mumpitz (

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 01:53 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 01:05 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > > >> $ touch x > > >> $ ln -s x firefox-bin > > JFTR > > I guess your intention was > > ln -s firefox-bin x > > ;). Mumpitz (humbug), now I'm mistaken :D. -- To UNSUBSCRIB

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 01:05 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > >> $ touch x > >> $ ln -s x firefox-bin JFTR I guess your intention was ln -s firefox-bin x ;). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 01:05 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > But you're right, with the -l switch of the ls command the OP should > have seen something like > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 user users 1 May 4 00:56 /tmp/xx/firefox-bin -> x > > indicating a soft-link. Ok, while I replied, you already noticed i

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 00:49 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > I thought of the following scenario: > > $ touch x > $ ln -s x firefox-bin > $ rm x > > Now with this dangling link named firefox-bin try > > $ ls firefox-bin > firefox-bin > > $ ./firefox-bin > -bash: ./firefox-bin: No such file

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote, on 05/04/2014 00:54: > Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote, on 05/04/2014 00:49: >> Ralf Mardorf wrote, on 05/03/2014 23:11: >>> On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 22:46 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: Tom H wrote, on 05/03/2014 15:02: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Jörg-Volker Peetz w

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote, on 05/04/2014 00:49: > Ralf Mardorf wrote, on 05/03/2014 23:11: >> On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 22:46 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: >>> Tom H wrote, on 05/03/2014 15:02: On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > > On my machine /usr/lib/iceweasel/f

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

Ralf Mardorf wrote, on 05/03/2014 23:11: > On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 22:46 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: >> Tom H wrote, on 05/03/2014 15:02: >>> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: On my machine /usr/lib/iceweasel/firefox-bin is a link to /usr/lib/iceweasel/icewe

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

JFTR nobody of us mentioned to - run sudo ldconfig without doing something else before doing this, for good reasons, but you never know, just in case, just run sudo ldconfig (without adding the path of your firefox install's libs to /etc/ld.so.conf or a file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/) - to log

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

PPS: To rule out that there was a hard link created to a non existing file: $ ln q p ln: failed to access ‘q’: No such file or directory It's impossible to create such a hard link. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 23:11 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 3.9K Mar 6 2012 firefox > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 44K Mar 6 2012 firefox-bin PS: "firefox" likely is a script or a bin executing "firefox-bin", it doesn't matter, since the OP tried to launch "firefox-bin" and

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 22:46 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > Tom H wrote, on 05/03/2014 15:02: > > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > >> > >> On my machine /usr/lib/iceweasel/firefox-bin is a link to > >> /usr/lib/iceweasel/iceweasel . So maybe on your machine > >> /usr/lo

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

Tom H wrote, on 05/03/2014 15:02: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: >> >> On my machine /usr/lib/iceweasel/firefox-bin is a link to >> /usr/lib/iceweasel/iceweasel . So maybe on your machine >> /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox-bin is a dangling link. >> What is the

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Fri, 02 May 2014 23:49:03 -0400 Gary Dale wrote: > On 02/05/14 10:25 PM, Tom Roche wrote: > > > > How is it possible that `ls` can list a file, but `bash` says "No > > such file"? [clip] > The problem you have may be related to the firebox-bin not being able > to find the files it needs. Bas

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > > On my machine /usr/lib/iceweasel/firefox-bin is a link to > /usr/lib/iceweasel/iceweasel . So maybe on your machine > /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox-bin is a dangling link. > What is the output of > > $ ls -lF /usr/local/share/f

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On my machine /usr/lib/iceweasel/firefox-bin is a link to /usr/lib/iceweasel/iceweasel . So maybe on your machine /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox-bin is a dangling link. What is the output of $ ls -lF /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox-bin Regards, jvp. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Tom H wrote: > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:10 AM, filip wrote: >> On Fri, 02 May 2014 22:25:34 -0400 >> Tom Roche wrote: >> >>> >>> For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), >>> see >>> http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=1665

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:10 AM, filip wrote: > On Fri, 02 May 2014 22:25:34 -0400 > Tom Roche wrote: > >> >> For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), >> see >> http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 >> >> But the essence of the proble

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, 03 May 2014 08:27:48 +0200 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > If the OP should add /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/ to a file > in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ the libraries likely will conflict with > "regular" libraries. I don't expect this. Multiple architectures can coexist, and libraries are versioned.

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 08:10 +0200, filip wrote: > Look in /etc/ld.so.conf and /etc/ld.so.conf.d what path names are > configured in the dynamic linker. You probably need to add a new path > with the location the non-standard firefox libraries. If the OP should add /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Fri, 02 May 2014 22:25:34 -0400 Tom Roche wrote: > > For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), > see > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 > > But the essence of the problem appears to be > > me@it ~ $ /usr/local/share/firefox

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On 2014-05-03 06:25 +0200, Tom Roche wrote: > Tom Roche Fri, 02 May 2014 22:25:34 -0400 >>> For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), see >>> http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 > >>> But the essence of the problem appears to be > >

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

Am 02. Mai, 2014 schwätzte Tom Roche so: moin moin, try the following to get more information. The first will make sure it's what you think it is, which it should be. $ type /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox* The second makes sure there aren't any extended attributes in play, which ther

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Tom Roche wrote: > > Tom Roche Fri, 02 May 2014 22:25:34 -0400 > >> For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), see > >> > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 > I guess I should have read that first.

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Tom Roche wrote: > > For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), > see http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 > > But the essence of the problem appears to be > > me@it ~ $ /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 13:38 +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > In fact, just how did you go about installing firefox? The OP send a link where you can see the installer script. http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 The OP explained why he needs this version of Firefox.

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Tom Roche wrote: > > For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), see > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 > > But the essence of the problem appears to be > > me@it ~ $ /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

Tom Roche wrote: > me@it ~ $ /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox-bin > bash: /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox-bin: No such file or directory > [127]me@it ~ $ lsalh /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox-bin > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 44K Mar 6 2012 > /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/f

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

Tom Roche Fri, 02 May 2014 22:25:34 -0400 >> For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), see >> http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 >> But the essence of the problem appears to be >> me@it ~ $ /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox

Re: `ls` shows file, `bash` says "No such file" ???

On 02/05/14 10:25 PM, Tom Roche wrote: For background on my problem (and why I very much need to solve it), see http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=166506&p=855700#p855700 But the essence of the problem appears to be me@it ~ $ /usr/local/share/firefox-3.6.28/firefox-bin bash: /us

Re: ls file exist, but can't access.

lina writes: > $ ls -lrt > total 8 > -rw-r--r-- 1 lina lina 367 Sep 27 00:15 RET > drwx-- 2 lina lina 4096 Sep 27 00:16 auto-save-list > > $ ls -lrt RET > ls: cannot access RET: No such file or directory > > $ cat RET > cat: RET: No such file or directory > > $ rm RET > rm: cannot remove `R

Re: ls file exist, but can't access.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:48:38 PM Tony van der Hoff wrote: > > That's the main reason I always use a fixed-pitch font for CLI stuff and > > email. > > So why was your post HTML? Hoist on me own petard! I thought I had all that turned off long ago. It keeps sneaking back, though. --

Re: ls file exist, but can't access.

On 26/09/12 17:46, Neal Murphy wrote: > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:33:42 PM lina wrote: > >> $ ls -lrt > >> total 8 > >> -rw-r--r-- 1 lina lina 367 Sep 27 00:15 RET > >> drwx-- 2 lina lina 4096 Sep 27 00:16 auto-save-list > > > > Look closer: there's a space you are overlooking

Re: ls file exist, but can't access.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:33:42 PM lina wrote: > $ ls -lrt > total 8 > -rw-r--r-- 1 lina lina 367 Sep 27 00:15 RET > drwx-- 2 lina lina 4096 Sep 27 00:16 auto-save-list Look closer: there's a space you are overlooking. ls -ls " RET" might work, and ls -ls *RET will definitely w

Re: ls file exist, but can't access.

On Thursday 27,September,2012 12:38 AM, Jochen Spieker wrote: > lina: >> >> $ ls -lrt >> total 8 >> -rw-r--r-- 1 lina lina 367 Sep 27 00:15 RET >> drwx-- 2 lina lina 4096 Sep 27 00:16 auto-save-list > > It looks like the file is not named "RET" bus " RET" instead. Quote the > whitespace and

Re: ls file exist, but can't access.

lina: > > $ ls -lrt > total 8 > -rw-r--r-- 1 lina lina 367 Sep 27 00:15 RET > drwx-- 2 lina lina 4096 Sep 27 00:16 auto-save-list It looks like the file is not named "RET" bus " RET" instead. Quote the whitespace and you should be able to read/delete it. J. -- I wish I had been aware enou

Re: ls sorting order change

Camaleón wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:28:33 -0400, Dan B. wrote: ... I guess now I need to figure out where I might like to see things in the "new" order vs. where I still want to see things in LC_COLLATE=C order.) Is that "that new"? The above output is from my Lenny system and that was the

Re: ls sorting order change

On Wed, 02 May 2012 15:28:33 -0400, Dan B. wrote: > Camaleón wrote: >> On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:10:23 -0400, Dan B. wrote: ... >> >>> On a fresh Squeeze installation, ls seems to ignore leading "." >>> characters (it no longer lists all "hidden" files adjacent to each >>> other) and to ignore capit

Re: ls sorting order change

Camaleón wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:10:23 -0400, Dan B. wrote: ... On a fresh Squeeze installation, ls seems to ignore leading "." characters (it no longer lists all "hidden" files adjacent to each other) and to ignore capitalization differences. (...) Can you post a sample of the command

Re: ls sorting order change

Sven Joachim wrote: On 2012-05-01 21:10 +0200, Dan B. wrote: What controls the order that the ls command uses for sorting names? The locale or more specifically, the LC_COLLATE setting. See locale(7). > ... .. LC_COLLATE=C for many years. Thanks. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de

Re: ls sorting order change

Wayne Topa wrote: On 05/01/2012 03:10 PM, Dan B. wrote: What controls the order that the ls command uses for sorting names? ... ... Well man ls says " List information about the FILEs (the current directory by default). Sort entries alphabetically if none of -cftuvSUX nor --sort is specifi

Re: ls sorting order change

On Tue, 01 May 2012 15:10:23 -0400, Dan B. wrote: > What controls the order that the ls command uses for sorting names? >From "man ls" → info coreutils 'ls invocation' anf here it can be read: *** By default, the output is sorted alphabetically, according to the locale settings in effect.(1) If

Re: ls sorting order change

> > On a fresh Squeeze installation, ls seems to ignore leading "." > characters (it no longer lists all "hidden" files adjacent to each > other) and to ignore capitalization differences. Hi Daniel, To list the hidden files, use the -a or -A option (the latter omits . and ..). Maybe you had one

Re: ls sorting order change

Dan B. wrote: > What controls the order that the ls command uses for sorting names? LC_COLLATE. Set it to "C". -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.d

Re: ls sorting order change

On 05/01/2012 03:10 PM, Dan B. wrote: What controls the order that the ls command uses for sorting names? On a fresh Squeeze installation, ls seems to ignore leading "." characters (it no longer lists all "hidden" files adjacent to each other) and to ignore capitalization differences. It used

Re: ls sorting order change

On 2012-05-01 21:10 +0200, Dan B. wrote: > What controls the order that the ls command uses for sorting names? The locale or more specifically, the LC_COLLATE setting. See locale(7). > On a fresh Squeeze installation, ls seems to ignore leading "." > characters (it no longer lists all "hidden"

Re: ls -alR with wd?

Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/10/2010 03:58 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote: > > This might be useful to you. I wrote it while pining away for the > OpenVMS DIR command, after seeing how incredibly useless "ls -alR" is. > > http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson/pydir > Thanks. I'll try it. -- Merciadri Luc

Re: ls -alR with wd?

On 06/10/2010 03:58 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote: Hi, I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I add some row giving this? Thanks. This

Re: ls -alR with wd?

John wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Merciadri Luca > wrote: > > > Just remember, locate is much faster because it's reading a database. > Results from "find" reflect the state of your system NOW, and results > from "locate" reflect what your system was whenever the last database > up

Re: ls -alR with wd?

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote: > `locate' is really, really, really, really faster. I had no knowledge > about it. Thanks a lot. Just remember, locate is much faster because it's reading a database. Results from "find" reflect the state of your system NOW, and results from

Re: ls -alR with wd?

Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:18:58AM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > >> Tzafrir Cohen wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: >>> >>> >>> Others already mentioned location. I'll just note that 'find' and 'ls >>> -lR' should have c

Re: ls -alR with wd?

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:18:58AM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > > > > > > Others already mentioned location. I'll just note that 'find' and 'ls > > -lR' should have comparable speeds. find's output shoul

Re: ls -alR with wd?

Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > > > Others already mentioned location. I'll just note that 'find' and 'ls > -lR' should have comparable speeds. find's output should be nicer to > parse. > > A single 'find' is normally enough to cache the r

Re: ls -alR with wd?

Jordan Metzmeier wrote: > On 06/10/2010 04:58 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote: > > Hi, > > > I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer > > using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does > > not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I

Re: ls -alR with wd?

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +, Camaleón wrote: > find /directory/to/find/* -type f -exec grep -H 'text' {} \; For that application, wouldn't you be better just using grep alone? i.e. grep -r 'text' /directory/to/find/ Cheers, Tom -- Raising pet electric eels is gaining a lot of cu

Re: ls -alR with wd?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Camaleón writes: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:58:58 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > >> I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. > > (...) > > I've got a "one-liner" saved: > > *** > find /directory/to/find/* -type f -exec grep -H 't

Re: ls -alR with wd?

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > Hi, > > I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer > using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does > not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I add some row >

Re: ls -alR with wd?

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:58:58 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. (...) I've got a "one-liner" saved: *** find /directory/to/find/* -type f -exec grep -H 'text' {} \; *** Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us

Re: ls -alR with wd?

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > On Thursday 10 June 2010 15:58:58 Merciadri Luca wrote: > > > > You can't. Use find correctly. If you do, it will always be faster than (ls > -alR | grep $stuff). > And what means `use find correctly?' Is `find . -name mystuff' so bad? -- Merciadri Luca Se

Re: ls -alR with wd?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/10/2010 04:58 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote: > Hi, > > I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer > using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does > not give me the directory where `stuff' is f

Re: ls -alR with wd?

On Thursday 10 June 2010 15:58:58 Merciadri Luca wrote: > I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer > using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does > not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I add some row > giving this? Than

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Just saw your message by chance. I read this list only on gmane. Replying to ML now. On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Doesn't the scanning software at least set the digitization time to the > time at which you scanned the photos in? Yes, it does. But that is of no use to

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 2

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Stephan Seitz wrote: ... That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read the ISO date format. Only if you know, it is ISO date format. Oh, also: Yes, but the ISO date format is fairly ea

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 0

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Stephan Seitz wrote: On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: ... That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read the ISO date format. Only if you know, it is ISO da

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Ma, 01 iun 10, 15:44:49, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > > Of course, SUS basically ignores any locale other than "POSIX" or "C", > > > but there is rarely a good reason to be different in other locales. > > > > One reason would be that '%b %e %Y' makes sense only to Americans >:-) > > In

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/01/2010 03:23 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> >>> From SUSv3: >>> "The field shall contain the appropriate date and >>> timestamp of >>> when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall >>> b

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Tuesday 01 June 2010 15:23:11 Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > From SUSv3: > > "The field shall contain the appropriate date and > > timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the > > field shall be the equivalent of t

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 06/01/2010 03:23 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: From SUSv3: "The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the equivalent of the output of the follo

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > From SUSv3: > "The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp > of > when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the > equivalent of the output of the following date command: > > date "+%b %e

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: For me dd mmm is very clear ... Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know? Then I can always use „env LANG=C ls -l”. That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sunday 30 May 2010 00:58:59 Brian Marshall wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:17:31AM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote: > > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > > > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" > > > has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Ma, 01 iun 10, 10:58:09, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > >For me dd mmm is very clear ... > > Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know? I think in such a case the output of ls will be the lesser of my problems ;) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic di

  1   2   3   >