Post #2806627
2026-05-03 22:08 UTC
@wouter@pleroma.debian.social @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @vagrantc@floss.social @mjw@mastodon.nl I know both "ln" and "ls" are being discussed in this thread, but I thought I was replying to an item in which you said you wanted to change the default behaviour of ln, not ls...
Replies (2)
-
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org 2026-05-03 22:09
@mattskala@mstdn.io Indeed, I initially thought @mjw@mastodon.nl was making a joke-patch for 'ln', which is where the confusion started. In fact, mjw made a ha-ha-only-serious patch to 'ls'. Cc: @wouter@pleroma.debian.social @vagrantc@floss.social
-
@wouter@pleroma.debian.social 2026-05-03 22:20
@mattskala@mstdn.io Oh no. That was discussed in a bug report that this thread links to, but that's a terrible idea. This is about adding an *option* to ls to swap the symlink and what that points to around in the ls output. @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @vagrantc@floss.social @mjw@mastodon.nl