Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu!fche Newsgroups: comp.sys.next From: fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") Subject: Re: Is ls -L broken in 2.0? Message-ID: <91May14.144955edt.2060@ois.db.toronto.edu> Reply-To: fche@db.toronto.edu Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto References: <1991May13.013701.21135@investor.pgh.pa.us> <1991May14.155119.26819@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: 14 May 91 18:50:11 GMT Lines: 17 cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes: > 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... It *is* the number of links! This is because the subdirectories' ".." file is a hard link to the parent directory, and thus gets counted for the ls -[lL] display. > If you want to see your symbolic links, use ls -l (ell). Good advice. "ls -l" is much more interesting. -- -- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- --