| 1 |
On 2006-01-07 20:01:25 +0100 (Sat, Jan), Holly Bostick wrote: |
| 2 |
> Willie Wong schreef: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:17:11PM +0100, Penguin Lover Holly Bostick |
| 4 |
> > squawked: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >> (how do you get ls to also include the @#$%#$ *year*??) |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Sorry, couldn't help with the rest of your problem, but I think it is |
| 10 |
> > assumed that ls will display the year only for files older than a |
| 11 |
> > year old. Quite clever, in my opinion. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> OK, I see what you mean-- or maybe I don't: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I see that many files that are more than a year old then are followed by |
| 16 |
> the year, but some are not, and some which are less than a year old are |
| 17 |
> followed by a year. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> -rw-r--r-- 1 motub somegroup 1661 jul 13 13:52 more_what works.txt |
| 20 |
> (this must have been created in 2005) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> but this file is less than a year old and is still fully dated: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 motub somegroup 581 jan 31 2005 computeruniverse_rma.txt |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> But even leaving aside the inconsistencies (only for the purposes of |
| 27 |
> this discussion), this is not the behaviour I expect or in fact desire. |
| 28 |
> I normally expect the year to be displayed whenever the current calendar |
| 29 |
> year is different from that associated with the file-- thus, if the file |
| 30 |
> was created in 2006, I would not expect the year to be shown, but if it |
| 31 |
> was created in 2005, I would expect the year to be shown, whether or not |
| 32 |
> the current date was one year or more from the month and day that the |
| 33 |
> file was created. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
It's a matter of taste, but I would rather keep this historical |
| 36 |
behaviour. On January the 1st you would see tiestamps from yesterday |
| 37 |
similiar to the 'very-old-ones'. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> Rather than go off on a rant, I will ask mildly: is there any way to |
| 40 |
> change the default behaviour to more reflect my expected behaviour? Not |
| 41 |
> so much asking you to tell me how to do it as asking if those of you who |
| 42 |
> have already read man ls whether there is a solution to be found when I |
| 43 |
> have the time to read it myself. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
info ls, section * Formatting file timestamps:: |
| 46 |
" A timestamp is considered to be "recent" if it is less than six |
| 47 |
months old, and is not dated in the future." |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
and further: |
| 50 |
" For example, `--time-style="+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"' causes..." |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
HTH |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
No virus found in this outgoing message. |
| 56 |
Checked by "grep -i virus $MESSAGE" |
Archives