Re: ls sort order bug

Matthew --

...and then Matthew Vanecek said...
% 
% David,
% Thanks for you reply.  I did a little poking around, based on your

Sure thing!


% advice about LANG.  (BTW, I do have v4.1).  I set my LANG to the POSIX
% English setting (C) instead of American English (en_US), and now ls
% works like I know and love.  I appreciate your reply and apologize for

Good :-)  I know *exactly* how you feel.


% considering it a bug in ls.  I may have to submit a patch to (someone)
% to correct the behavior when LANG=en_US.  That's just very frustrating

Hmmm...  I think that "correct" is the wrong term here, since en_US
defines case insensitivity (IIRC).  Yeah, you might patch it, but I
should think that setting LC_COLLATE would be easier :-)


% (where's README!! why is it with rpm!!).  Until that's fixed, I think
% I'll try POSIX English.

Sounds like a good idea.  Note that you can have your LANG set to one
thing, your LC_COLLATE to another, and so on; your numbers could still
have commas for decimals rather than thousands separators while your
output sorted as you expect.


% 
% Thanks.

Sure thing!


HAND

:-D
-- 
David T-G                      * There is too much animal courage in 
(play) [email protected] * society and not sufficient moral courage.
(work) [email protected]  -- Mary Baker Eddy, "Science and Health"
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/    Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE936nGGb7uCXufRwARAsatAKDSXEsevjuoWZRNr1vfROobOO6RjACgpB/Q
7+S+2vNF0puKBZMv+JyjJJM=
=WRjN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----