Re: Not sure how to best reply re: dir_colors situation

[Kamil Dudka]

On Saturday 06 of June 2009 11:07:03 Joshua Rodman wrote:
> I put that line, minus the initial tick (') in my bashrc, but I thought
> the demo would be clear that the hl sed cannot work since there is no hl
> for it to match.

Sorry for the typo.

> I am using bash, as I meant the working directory to hint.
> Perhaps I should have added
>
>     address@hidden:~/rc/bash >echo $SHELL
>     /bin/bash
>
> This indeed the example from the NEWS file, which was the only
> information I could find on disabling the feature.

It seems like a dearth of documentation to me.

> I still think that this behavior is incorrect, because it is not
> helpful.

It might be helpful in some cases. It can for example point out that
by invoking rm on 5GiB file you won't get 5GiB of free space. Multi-hardlinked 
files also need special attention while making archive, etc.

> Parting gripes: HARDLINK is confusing, since as above, all files are
> hard links.  MULTIHARDLINK perhaps?

Yes, it makes sense to me.

As you are not the first user confused by highlighting of multi-hardlinked 
files I am not in complete opposite in making it as non-default, or even 
reverting the change completely. I am ready to make the appropriate changes 
once we have a consensus here on the list.

Note the idea came originally from Ubuntu wishlist:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/coreutils/+bug/123423

I just found it useful and therefore wrote the patch. I didn't realize that 
such change could bother other users, which are not intersted in colorizing 
of multi-hardlinked files.

Kamil