Question about the ls command

[Randall R Schulz]

Stan,

If that's so, then you're not invoking "ls" directly or you're not invoking 
Cygwin's ls. (Both of those invocations work find for me, by the way.) 
Perhaps there's an alias, a function or a script intervening that's 
\defined under the assumption of a simpler (or simply an alternate) kind of 
invocation.

Assuming you're using BASH, use this command: "type -a ls" to discover what 
is being invoked when you issue an "ls" command. Make sure that either 
"/bin/ls" or "/usr/bin/ls" is in the list of "ls" commands. Then get rid of 
the incorrect or inappropriate ones, either by removing their definitions 
(if its and alias or shell function) or re-ordering your PATH so the proper 
"ls" is chosen instead of the bogus one.

Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 08:56 2002-10-30, Stan Horwitz wrote:


>On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Cliff Hones wrote:
> >
> > The 'man' command is your friend.  If you run "man ls" you will
> > find many options for controlling the output of ls, including
> > --full-time, which is probably what you need.
>
>Sorry, I should have stated that I checked the man page. When I do
>something like "ls -ls --full-time" or "ls -ls -F --full-time" I get a
>syntax error.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/