Re: bin/43751: ls -L returns wrong exit code

["Valeriy E. Ushakov" <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/43751; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Valeriy E. Ushakov" <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/43751: ls -L returns wrong exit code
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:08:47 +0400

 On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:37:11 -0700, john heasley wrote:
 
 > Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:25:02PM +0000, Valeriy E. Ushakov:
 > > The following reply was made to PR bin/43751; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > >  On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:12:11 -0700, john heasley wrote:
 > >  
 > >  > -static void     display(FTSENT *, FTSENT *);
 > >  > +static void     display(FTSENT *, FTSENT *, int);
 > >  
 > >  Instead of passing options around, just introduce a global variable
 > >  for the -L flag.
 > 
 > ok, after that, you're ok with this change?
 >
 > >  Might be a good time to add -H support too.
 > 
 > meaning this (from solaris)?
 > 
 >      -H           If an argument is a symbolic link  that  refer-
 >                   ences  a  directory,  this option evaluates the
 >                   file information and file type of the directory
 >                   that  the link references, rather than those of
 >                   the link itself. However, the name of the  link
 >                   is displayed, rather than the referenced direc-
 >                   tory.
 
 Yes.  Or this:
 
   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/ls.html
 
 Hmm, actually... From my cursory glance through the code -L vs. -H
 should translate into different "options" for command line args, so
 may be passing "options" (or at least something that indicates logical
 vs. physical) to display() is a better approach.
 
 Thanks for bearing with my drive-by nitpicking...
 
 -uwe