Highlight files that are executable or have suid about lsd

[Peltoche]

Hi @LippyBoy,

Thanks for the issue, it seems to be a good idea indeed. I see that with ls --color=always the files are colored in green if the user have the executable permission but I don't see any *.

For the specific icon I'm not sure it will make it more readable. For example if we lsd an executable bash script and we replace the bash icon by generic executable icon we duplicate the "this file is an executable" info (color green + icon) and we loose the "this file is a bash script" info with the bash icon. There is currently the same issue with one of the latest change with the symbolic link.

[Peltoche]

#44 created

[Peltoche]

#45 created

[LippyBoy]

Apparently the * only appears when using the "-F" flag, which was the default on my machine.

This is the full list of symbols:

@ means symbolic link (or that the file has extended attributes).
* means executable.
= means socket.
| means named pipe.
> means door.
/ means directory.

Maybe this should also be a feature.

[Peltoche]

I learned something new today, thanks to you.

The / is already done for the directories.

The question is: Should it be set as default or do we need a flag for it? Personally I vote to put them by default without any flag, I think it would simplify the options.

[alaymari]

As it is, lsd displays icons for directories and files. I feel adding / to the end of the filename is not a good idea for lsd. I feel icons should indicate the type of the file (link, shell script, etc) and the colors should be as per LS_COLORS.

Edit: The problem with the indicators I have faced is when I double click+middle button press to copy-paste the names, the indicators are also included, which is an annoyance.

[Peltoche]

You copy-paste issue is interesting and it's true that moving the information into the icons solve the problem in most cases (as explained in my previous message the symbolic link bother me a little).

In any case an option allowing to setup the icons set (current icons / unicode only / no icons) should appear soon. This means that some user would have to possibility to print the result without icons and so I think that the -F flag would be useful for them.

If I resume the discussion:

We add custom icons for all the custom files (pipe / symlink / executable / etc) and we create a -F flag like the classic ls which can be used by the user who doesn't want to use the icons.

Seems good to you?

[alaymari]

As you suggest, a -F may be useful for printing purposes. But, would not the vanilla ls already do that job? :-)

Regarding the icons, I noticed that the TeX file has an icon which is so thin, it is nearly invisible. Can a different icon be set for that; maybe the txt file icon itself would be better than the existing one.

[Peltoche]

Yep, finally it's probably the best idea to follow the classic ls -F option and add the filetype specific icons. If we do that it means that we should to remove the '/' at the end of the directories when the -F option is not set.