Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3B2E5A77.A8129227@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:45:59 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Update for symlinks and LS_COLORS
References: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEGLCEAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Tim Van Holder wrote:
> 
> > Isn't red the color used by compressed files?
> 
> I think he means a red background.  Checking... ah, no he doesn't.

Ouch, yes, the colour is the same as for compressed files.

> > 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.

This also depends on RedHat version - on RH6.2 normal and orphaned links
are the same colour.

I think identifying broken symlinks would be useful. If there are no
objections, I'll go with bold bright white on bright red for broken
symlinks.

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe
http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/