“ls -l” doesn't show symlinks source paths
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Before I reinstalled MacOS, ls -l showed symlinks with their source path. Now ls -l shows symlinks as regular files - without the source path.
How can I make it show the source path?
I'm on a clean MacOS installation with ZSH and a basic .zshrc file.
Here's an image where etc is showed with it's source:
zsh symlink
edited Dec 3 at 12:15
Rui F Ribeiro
38.4k1478127
asked Dec 3 at 11:13
Emanuil Rusev
1085
New contributor
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Before I reinstalled MacOS, ls -l showed symlinks with their source path. Now ls -l shows symlinks as regular files - without the source path.
How can I make it show the source path?
I'm on a clean MacOS installation with ZSH and a basic .zshrc file.
Here's an image where etc is showed with it's source:
zsh symlink
edited Dec 3 at 12:15
Rui F Ribeiro
38.4k1478127
asked Dec 3 at 11:13
Emanuil Rusev
1085
New contributor
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4086 Also, you have asked about the behaviour ofls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about.
– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 11:43
1
Yes, please show us the output of/bin/ls -l. If that works, show us the output oftype llandtype ls.
– terdon♦
Dec 3 at 13:03
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Before I reinstalled MacOS, ls -l showed symlinks with their source path. Now ls -l shows symlinks as regular files - without the source path.
How can I make it show the source path?
I'm on a clean MacOS installation with ZSH and a basic .zshrc file.
Here's an image where etc is showed with it's source:
zsh symlink
edited Dec 3 at 12:15
Rui F Ribeiro
38.4k1478127
asked Dec 3 at 11:13
Emanuil Rusev
1085
New contributor
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Before I reinstalled MacOS, ls -l showed symlinks with their source path. Now ls -l shows symlinks as regular files - without the source path.
How can I make it show the source path?
I'm on a clean MacOS installation with ZSH and a basic .zshrc file.
Here's an image where etc is showed with it's source:
zsh symlink
zsh symlink
edited Dec 3 at 12:15
Rui F Ribeiro
38.4k1478127
asked Dec 3 at 11:13
Emanuil Rusev
1085
New contributor
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 3 at 12:15
Rui F Ribeiro
38.4k1478127
asked Dec 3 at 11:13
Emanuil Rusev
1085
New contributor
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 3 at 12:15
Rui F Ribeiro
38.4k1478127
edited Dec 3 at 12:15
Rui F Ribeiro
38.4k1478127
edited Dec 3 at 12:15
Rui F Ribeiro
38.4k1478127
38.4k1478127
asked Dec 3 at 11:13
Emanuil Rusev
1085
New contributor
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Dec 3 at 11:13
Emanuil Rusev
1085
asked Dec 3 at 11:13
Emanuil Rusev
1085
1085
New contributor
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4086 Also, you have asked about the behaviour ofls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about.
– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 11:43
1
Yes, please show us the output of/bin/ls -l. If that works, show us the output oftype llandtype ls.
– terdon♦
Dec 3 at 13:03
add a comment |
unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4086 Also, you have asked about the behaviour ofls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about.
– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 11:43
1
Yes, please show us the output of/bin/ls -l. If that works, show us the output oftype llandtype ls.
– terdon♦
Dec 3 at 13:03
unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4086 Also, you have asked about the behaviour of
ls -l but have shown the behaviour of ll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about.– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 11:43
unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4086 Also, you have asked about the behaviour of
ls -l but have shown the behaviour of ll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about.– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 11:43
1
1
Yes, please show us the output of
/bin/ls -l. If that works, show us the output of type ll and type ls.– terdon♦
Dec 3 at 13:03
Yes, please show us the output of
/bin/ls -l. If that works, show us the output of type ll and type ls.– terdon♦
Dec 3 at 13:03
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
It's possible ls is reporting the file system correctly but instead your folders are hardlinked instead.
However without seeing the output from ls that you are now seeing (rather than what you are expecting to see), any answer here would be largely speculative.
@JdeBP: Also, you have asked about the behaviour of
ls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about
ll is usually just an alias for ls -l (for example, defined in the users ~/.bashrc)
(sorry, I couldn't reply to you directly as don't have enough reputation to leave a comment)
answered Dec 3 at 12:11
laumars
262
New contributor
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"usually" is not good enough. I've seen enough variations on these over the years to not take what they may expand to for granted, and to not take for granted thatlsitself is not a shell function/alias.
– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 12:44
1
You're right, it was a hard link, all makes sense now. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response!
– Emanuil Rusev
Dec 3 at 13:22
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
It's possible ls is reporting the file system correctly but instead your folders are hardlinked instead.
However without seeing the output from ls that you are now seeing (rather than what you are expecting to see), any answer here would be largely speculative.
@JdeBP: Also, you have asked about the behaviour of
ls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about
ll is usually just an alias for ls -l (for example, defined in the users ~/.bashrc)
(sorry, I couldn't reply to you directly as don't have enough reputation to leave a comment)
answered Dec 3 at 12:11
laumars
262
New contributor
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"usually" is not good enough. I've seen enough variations on these over the years to not take what they may expand to for granted, and to not take for granted thatlsitself is not a shell function/alias.
– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 12:44
1
You're right, it was a hard link, all makes sense now. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response!
– Emanuil Rusev
Dec 3 at 13:22
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
It's possible ls is reporting the file system correctly but instead your folders are hardlinked instead.
However without seeing the output from ls that you are now seeing (rather than what you are expecting to see), any answer here would be largely speculative.
@JdeBP: Also, you have asked about the behaviour of
ls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about
ll is usually just an alias for ls -l (for example, defined in the users ~/.bashrc)
(sorry, I couldn't reply to you directly as don't have enough reputation to leave a comment)
answered Dec 3 at 12:11
laumars
262
New contributor
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"usually" is not good enough. I've seen enough variations on these over the years to not take what they may expand to for granted, and to not take for granted thatlsitself is not a shell function/alias.
– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 12:44
1
You're right, it was a hard link, all makes sense now. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response!
– Emanuil Rusev
Dec 3 at 13:22
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
It's possible ls is reporting the file system correctly but instead your folders are hardlinked instead.
However without seeing the output from ls that you are now seeing (rather than what you are expecting to see), any answer here would be largely speculative.
@JdeBP: Also, you have asked about the behaviour of
ls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about
ll is usually just an alias for ls -l (for example, defined in the users ~/.bashrc)
(sorry, I couldn't reply to you directly as don't have enough reputation to leave a comment)
answered Dec 3 at 12:11
laumars
262
New contributor
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It's possible ls is reporting the file system correctly but instead your folders are hardlinked instead.
However without seeing the output from ls that you are now seeing (rather than what you are expecting to see), any answer here would be largely speculative.
@JdeBP: Also, you have asked about the behaviour of
ls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about
ll is usually just an alias for ls -l (for example, defined in the users ~/.bashrc)
(sorry, I couldn't reply to you directly as don't have enough reputation to leave a comment)
answered Dec 3 at 12:11
laumars
262
New contributor
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 3 at 12:17
answered Dec 3 at 12:11
laumars
262
New contributor
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Dec 3 at 12:11
laumars
262
answered Dec 3 at 12:11
laumars
262
262
New contributor
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
laumars is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"usually" is not good enough. I've seen enough variations on these over the years to not take what they may expand to for granted, and to not take for granted thatlsitself is not a shell function/alias.
– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 12:44
1
You're right, it was a hard link, all makes sense now. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response!
– Emanuil Rusev
Dec 3 at 13:22
add a comment |
"usually" is not good enough. I've seen enough variations on these over the years to not take what they may expand to for granted, and to not take for granted thatlsitself is not a shell function/alias.
– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 12:44
1
You're right, it was a hard link, all makes sense now. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response!
– Emanuil Rusev
Dec 3 at 13:22
"usually" is not good enough. I've seen enough variations on these over the years to not take what they may expand to for granted, and to not take for granted that
ls itself is not a shell function/alias.– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 12:44
"usually" is not good enough. I've seen enough variations on these over the years to not take what they may expand to for granted, and to not take for granted that
ls itself is not a shell function/alias.– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 12:44
1
1
You're right, it was a hard link, all makes sense now. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response!
– Emanuil Rusev
Dec 3 at 13:22
You're right, it was a hard link, all makes sense now. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response!
– Emanuil Rusev
Dec 3 at 13:22
add a comment |
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Emanuil Rusev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485663%2fls-l-doesnt-show-symlinks-source-paths%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4086 Also, you have asked about the behaviour of
ls -lbut have shown the behaviour ofll. Show the behaviour of the command that you are asking about.– JdeBP
Dec 3 at 11:43
1
Yes, please show us the output of
/bin/ls -l. If that works, show us the output oftype llandtype ls.– terdon♦
Dec 3 at 13:03