ls output - octal

ls -l | sed -e 's/--x/1/g' -e 's/-w-/2/g' -e 's/-wx/3/g' -e 's/r--/4/g' -e 's/r-x/5/g' -e 's/rw-/6/g' -e 's/rwx/7/g' -e 's/---/0/g'

-2
By: Habitual
2012-01-08 15:25:17

2 Alternatives + Submit Alt

  • this requires the use of a throwaway file. it outputs a shell function. assuming the throwaway file is f.tmp usage: >f.tmp;lso f.tmp > f.tmp; . f.tmp;rm f.tmp;lso -l ... notes: credit epons.org for the idea. however his version did not account for the sticky bit and other special cases. many of the 4096 permutations of file permissions make no practical sense. but chmod will still create them. one can achieve the same sort of octal output with stat(1), if that utility is available. here's another version to account for systems with seq(1) instead of jot(1): lso(){ case $# in 1) { case $(uname) in FreeBSD) jot -w '%04d' 7778 0000 7777 ;; *) seq -w 0000 7777 ;; esac; } \ |sed ' /[89]/d s,.*,printf '"'"'& '"'"';chmod & '"$1"';ls -l '"$1"'|sed s/-/./,' \ |sh \ |{ echo "lso(){"; echo "ls \$@ \\"; echo " |sed '"; sed ' s, ,@,2; s,@.*,,; s,\(.* \)\(.*\),s/\2/\1/,; s, ,,'; echo \'; echo }; }; ;; *) echo "usage: lso tmp-file"; ;; esac; } this won't print out types[1]. but its purpose is not to examine types. its focus is on mode and its purpose is to make mode easier to read (assuming one finds octal easier to read). 1. one could of course argue "everything is a file", but not always a "regular" one. e.g., a "directory" is really just a file comprising a list.


    0
    lso(){ jot -w '%04d' 7778 0000 7777 |sed '/[89]/d;s,.*,printf '"'"'& '"'"';chmod & '"$1"';ls -l '"$1"'|sed s/-/./,' \ |sh \ |{ echo "lso(){";echo "ls \$@ \\";echo " |sed '";sed 's, ,@,2;s,@.*,,;s,\(.* \)\(.*\),s/\2/\1/,;s, ,,';echo \';echo };};}
    argv · 2012-01-08 05:48:24 0

  • 0
    perl -e 'printf "%o\n", (stat shift)[2]&07777' file
    smallduck · 2013-06-15 19:26:23 0

What Others Think

Fails on files named like rwx, and I also have files with permissions drwxrwsr-x from syslinux.
dratini0 · 337 weeks ago
Argh. A terrible example of the hammer-and-nail disease. Why not you use find(1) where applicable? find /path -maxdepth 1 -name "*pattern*" -printf "%m %p\n"
Jubal · 336 weeks and 6 days ago

What do you think?

Any thoughts on this command? Does it work on your machine? Can you do the same thing with only 14 characters?

You must be signed in to comment.

What's this?

commandlinefu.com is the place to record those command-line gems that you return to again and again. That way others can gain from your CLI wisdom and you from theirs too. All commands can be commented on, discussed and voted up or down.

Share Your Commands



Stay in the loop…

Follow the Tweets.

Every new command is wrapped in a tweet and posted to Twitter. Following the stream is a great way of staying abreast of the latest commands. For the more discerning, there are Twitter accounts for commands that get a minimum of 3 and 10 votes - that way only the great commands get tweeted.

» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu3
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu10

Subscribe to the feeds.

Use your favourite RSS aggregator to stay in touch with the latest commands. There are feeds mirroring the 3 Twitter streams as well as for virtually every other subset (users, tags, functions,…):

Subscribe to the feed for: