1 |
Hi Roland, |
2 |
|
3 |
vielleicht ist das ja eine Fährte die du mal aufnehmen solltest: |
4 |
Es gab ja kürzlich ein update der Coreutils, vielleicht liegt es an der |
5 |
zuständigen conf. Datei die du eventuell nicht ersetzt hast. |
6 |
Hier ein Auszug aus den Parametern des manuals der Coreutils zu diversen |
7 |
Konfigurationsmöglichkeiten: |
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
10.1.3 Sorting the output |
11 |
|
12 |
------------------------- |
13 |
|
14 |
These options change the order in which `ls' sorts the information it |
15 |
|
16 |
outputs. By default, sorting is done by character code (e.g., ASCII |
17 |
|
18 |
order). |
19 |
|
20 |
`-c' |
21 |
|
22 |
`--time=ctime' |
23 |
|
24 |
`--time=status' |
25 |
|
26 |
If the long listing format (e.g., `-l', `-o') is being used, print |
27 |
|
28 |
the status change time (the `ctime' in the inode) instead of the |
29 |
|
30 |
modification time. When explicitly sorting by time (`--sort=time' |
31 |
|
32 |
or `-t') or when not using a long listing format, sort according |
33 |
|
34 |
to the status change time. |
35 |
|
36 |
`-f' |
37 |
|
38 |
Primarily, like `-U'--do not sort; list the files in whatever |
39 |
|
40 |
order they are stored in the directory. But also enable `-a' (list |
41 |
|
42 |
all files) and disable `-l', `--color', and `-s' (if they were |
43 |
|
44 |
specified before the `-f'). |
45 |
|
46 |
`-r' |
47 |
|
48 |
`--reverse' |
49 |
|
50 |
Reverse whatever the sorting method is--e.g., list files in reverse |
51 |
|
52 |
alphabetical order, youngest first, smallest first, or whatever. |
53 |
|
54 |
`-S' |
55 |
|
56 |
`--sort=size' |
57 |
|
58 |
Sort by file size, largest first. |
59 |
|
60 |
`-t' |
61 |
|
62 |
`--sort=time' |
63 |
|
64 |
Sort by modification time (the `mtime' in the inode), newest first. |
65 |
|
66 |
`-u' |
67 |
|
68 |
`--time=atime' |
69 |
|
70 |
`--time=access' |
71 |
|
72 |
`--time=use' |
73 |
|
74 |
If the long listing format (e.g., `--format=long') is being used, |
75 |
|
76 |
print the last access time (the `atime' in the inode). When |
77 |
|
78 |
explicitly sorting by time (`--sort=time' or `-t') or when not |
79 |
|
80 |
using a long listing format, sort according to the access time. |
81 |
|
82 |
`-U' |
83 |
|
84 |
`--sort=none' |
85 |
|
86 |
Do not sort; list the files in whatever order they are stored in |
87 |
|
88 |
the directory. (Do not do any of the other unrelated things that |
89 |
|
90 |
`-f' does.) This is especially useful when listing very large |
91 |
|
92 |
directories, since not doing any sorting can be noticeably faster. |
93 |
|
94 |
`-v' |
95 |
|
96 |
`--sort=version' |
97 |
|
98 |
Sort by version name and number, lowest first. It behaves like a |
99 |
|
100 |
default sort, except that each sequence of decimal digits is |
101 |
|
102 |
treated numerically as an index/version number. (*Note More |
103 |
|
104 |
details about version sort::.) |
105 |
|
106 |
`-X' |
107 |
|
108 |
`--sort=extension' |
109 |
|
110 |
Sort directory contents alphabetically by file extension |
111 |
|
112 |
(characters after the last `.'); files with no extension are |
113 |
|
114 |
sorted first. |
115 |
|
116 |
|
117 |
|
118 |
|
119 |
2009/2/24 Roland Damm <roland-damm@×××××.de> |
120 |
|
121 |
> On Sunday 22 February 2009 22:50:21 Roland Damm wrote: |
122 |
> > Moin, |
123 |
> > |
124 |
> > ich hatte folgendes schon mal in d.c.o.u.l.m. gepostet, aber da kommt |
125 |
> > irgendwie kein Hinweis. Hat hier schon mal jemand folgendes erlebt: |
126 |
> > .... |
127 |
> |
128 |
> Hmm, hier scheint auch keiner das Phänomen zu kennen. Gibt es wenigstens |
129 |
> irgendwelche Tips, in welche Richtung man suchen muss? Speicher KDE |
130 |
> irgendwo |
131 |
> irgendwelche Informationen über Dateien, die nicht im filesystem selbst |
132 |
> abgelegt sind? Zusatzinformationen, die irgendwie korrumpiert sein können, |
133 |
> die man einfach so löschen kann? |
134 |
> |
135 |
> CU Rollo |
136 |
> |
137 |
> |
138 |
> |