>
> That does not behave any differently on my system.
>
> ls -l and ls -lg both return identical results on my system. So what you
> are in effect doing is awking a file that looks like
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 261 May 21 11:02 mainlog
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 261 May 21 11:02 mainlog
>
I've seen that problem before. Solaris, and I think several other commercial
OSs return ls -l and ls -g and sometimes ls -lg differently, most free
OSs don't, I think gnu-ls doesn't behave in the 'expected' manner.
Personally I prefer gnu-ls's way of doing things.
I can't think of any outstandingly good ways of solving this, in terms
of coping for it, except to do some test based on size, but that is
icky.
or of course
lslg=`ls -lg mainlog`
lsl=`ls -l mainlog`
if [ X$lsl = X$lslg ]
then
# ls -l and ls -lg producce the same output.
...
fi
But then I haven't looked in powertools which is my fountain for all
higher shell scripting wisdom.
Julian
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
