Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:47:51 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Update for symlinks and LS_COLORS
In-Reply-To: <3B2E5A77.A8129227@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010619114717.7390L-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Richard Dawe wrote:

> 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.

Then I suggest to find another color.

> > > 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.

Sounds okay to me.