[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails |
Date: |
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:04:39 +0300 |
> From: John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 14:46:14 -0700
> Cc: Tino Calancha <calancha@gmail.com>, 27919@debbugs.gnu.org,
> Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
>
> If anything, why not get rid of ls-lisp?
Because (a) it's much smaller than Eshell, so better suited for
something that's preloaded; and (b) it supports quite a few options
that Eshell doesn't, AFAIK, and which Windows users might expect to be
available, as they are available in "other file-system browsers".
I actually think that getting rid of any of these two is not a good
idea, but that's me.
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, Tino Calancha, 2017/08/02
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, John Wiegley, 2017/08/02
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, Tino Calancha, 2017/08/02
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, John Wiegley, 2017/08/03
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, Glenn Morris, 2017/08/03
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, John Wiegley, 2017/08/03
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, John Wiegley, 2017/08/04
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/08/04
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, Drew Adams, 2017/08/04
- bug#27919: 25.2.50; dired + eshell-ls: fallback to external ls fails, Tino Calancha, 2017/08/04