Re: bug in ls(1) manpage

2011-03-05 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 07:51:14PM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > > > fixed, thanks. but i'm confused - if originally -g requested group info > > > > "be included", why did the man page say (of group info) "though not for > > > > -g"? should that pas

Re: bug in ls(1) manpage

2011-03-05 Thread Jeremy C. Reed
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > fixed, thanks. but i'm confused - if originally -g requested group info > > > "be included", why did the man page say (of group info) "though not for > > > -g"? should that passage read "excluded" instead? anyone know? > > > > Sorry -- after checkin

Re: bug in ls(1) manpage

2011-03-05 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 07:44:28PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 03:59:16PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 03:21:00PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > > ls(1) still has the old semantics for -g in one spot. > > > > > > Index: ls.1 > > >

Re: bug in ls(1) manpage

2011-03-05 Thread Pascal Stumpf
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 03:59:16PM +, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 03:21:00PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > ls(1) still has the old semantics for -g in one spot. > > > > Index: ls.1 > > === > > RCS file: /cvs/

Re: bug in ls(1) manpage

2011-03-05 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 03:21:00PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > ls(1) still has the old semantics for -g in one spot. > > Index: ls.1 > === > RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/ls/ls.1,v > retrieving revision 1.63 > diff -u -r1.63 ls.1 > --- ls.

bug in ls(1) manpage

2011-03-05 Thread Pascal Stumpf
ls(1) still has the old semantics for -g in one spot. Index: ls.1 === RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/ls/ls.1,v retrieving revision 1.63 diff -u -r1.63 ls.1 --- ls.14 Mar 2011 21:03:19 - 1.63 +++ ls.15 Mar 2011 14:17: