Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!helios!cnh5730 From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Is ls -L broken in 2.0? Message-ID: Date: 14 May 91 18:01:38 GMT References: <1991May13.013701.21135@investor.pgh.pa.us> <1991May14.155119.26819@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Sender: usenet@helios.TAMU.EDU Organization: Human Race Lines: 14 In-reply-to: das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu's message of 14 May 91 15:51:19 GMT In article <1991May14.155119.26819@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Douglas A Scott) writes: 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... If you want to see your symbolic links, use ls -l (ell). -- "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche