From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Cc: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
        "Richard Dawe" <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Subject: Re: Update for symlinks and LS_COLORS
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:57:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEGLCEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010618100238.22931H@is>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Isn't red the color used by compressed files?

I think he means a red background.  Checking... ah, no he doesn't.

> Also, do we really want the orphaned symlinks to stand out in color so
> much?  Or is this color normal on Unix and GNU systems?

RedHat Linux uses a setting for LS_COLORS that colors orphaned symlinks
as bold bright white on bright red.  Not sure about other distros/Unices.

Maybe that's we should go for then - orphaned links generally mean
trouble, so having them readily available is a good idea, IMHO.