[Bug 245270] ls(1) man page describes LSCOLORS wrong
bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org
bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org
Thu Apr 2 04:16:51 UTC 2020
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245270
Bug ID: 245270
Summary: ls(1) man page describes LSCOLORS wrong
Product: Documentation
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any
OS: Any
Status: New
Severity: Affects Many People
Priority: ---
Component: Manual Pages
Assignee: bugs at FreeBSD.org
Reporter: deepbluemistake at gmail.com
CC: doc at FreeBSD.org
Created attachment 212969
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=212969&action=edit
diff to ls.1
The ls man page
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ls&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+12.1-RELEASE+and+Ports&arch=default&format=html
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/bin/ls/ls.1
describes the colors wrong. I checked ls's code, and indeed it can and does
use ANSI color, so the actual ANSI standard can be referenced for color names
and behavior:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-048.pdf
Especially since the man page also references ANSI in the LSCOLORS section.
Discovered this on 12.1-RELEASE-p3 but wrote and attached a patch for the ls.1
currently seen in the GitHub repository (presumably -current)
Important to note is that some terminals do not have separate colors for bold
and non-bold text. Some terminals do have separate colors, of course, but not
all.
Semi-relatedly, and not dealt with in this patch or bug report:
LSCOLORS's format is deficient, anyway. Setting it to bC, Bc, or BC provides
the same output. The colors struct in ls's print.c has bold-status, foreground
color, and background color as three different items. The LSCOLORS string
should have them as three different characters too, rather than conflating
boldness with one of the colors. Hence I think bc should be 0bc and Bc, bC,
and BC should be 1bc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the freebsd-doc
mailing list