From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26083 invoked from network); 21 Jul 1999 14:26:10 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 21 Jul 1999 14:26:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 9513 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 1999 14:26:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7242 Received: (qmail 9506 invoked from network); 21 Jul 1999 14:26:00 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:33:59 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thomas_K=F6hler?= To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Problem with ZLS_COLOURS (zsh-3.1.6-test-2) Message-ID: <19990721173359.A13790@picard.franken.de> Mail-Followup-To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk References: <199907211215.OAA03026@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: <199907211215.OAA03026@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de>; from Sven Wischnowsky on Wed, Jul 21, 1999 at 02:15:16PM +0200 X-Operating-System: Linux picard 2.2.10 X-Editor: VIM - Vi IMproved 5.4p BETA http://www.vim.org/ X-IRC: tirc-1.2; Nick: jeanluc X-URL: http://home.pages.de/~jeanluc/ Sven Wischnowsky wrote: >=20 > Thomas Koehler wrote: >=20 > > This part of the patch causes *ALL* matches to be highlighted in cyan, > > even directories. If I don't apply this part but the part down there, > > all works as expected. >=20 > That's because of your ZLS_COLOURS=3D'...:*=3D36;40', of course, such > `empty' patterns were silently ignored before the patch. *uhm* So applying the patch and taking out the "*=3D36;40" would do the trick? It works now with that "*=3D36;40" and without that part... > When I first posted collist I asked if someone who uses GNU-ls with > colours could check if collist does the same as that; this is one of > the places where I wasn't sure. Since I don't have a GNU-ls here, I > have to ask: in complist patterns take precedence over file-type- > capabilities -- is this different in the GNU-ls? I don't read all messages on the workers list (there's a lack of time on my side), so I have missed that completely. reading the 3.1.6-test-1 announce was my reason to get a newer version than the 3.1.4 I was using... And I read about that cool feature and wanted to check it out :-) Now... I just tested ls with LS_COLORS set to my ZLS_COLOURS (and there was a bug in there, ma where mi should have been) - now zsh and ls do the same colouring *cool*. Anyways, there's a bug in GNU ls :) It ignores LS_COLOURS completely and only honors LS_COLORS - while the manpage says both work. zsh is much better here :) BTW: The "*=3D36;40" makes no difference for ls and its colouring... > Bye > Sven CU, Thomas --=20 Thomas K=F6hler Email: jean-luc@picard.franken.de <>< WWW: http://home.pages.de/~jeanluc/ IRC: jeanluc LCARS --- Linux for Computers on All Real Starships