Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!das15
From: das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Douglas A Scott)
Subject: Re: Is ls -L broken in 2.0?
Message-ID: <1991May14.155119.26819@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Douglas A Scott)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <1991May13.013701.21135@investor.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 14 May 1991 15:51:19 GMT

In article <1991May13.013701.21135@investor.pgh.pa.us> rbp@investor.pgh.pa.us (Bob Peirce #305) writes:
>Neither ls -L nor ls -lL are producing output to show symbolic links.
>Are they broken or is there another command I should be using?

	Not only do they not show links, but it seems that that field in the
	output is used to to the number of subdirectories below a given
	directory.  Wonder if that is documented somewhere...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Douglas Scott          Columbia University Computer Music Studio 
Internet: <doug@woof.columbia.edu> <das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu>
UUCP: ...!columbia!woof!zardoz!doug          Phone: (703)765-4771