Re: find -links n

[Bernhard Voelker]

On 07/14/2013 12:19 PM, Günter Wallnig wrote:
> I believe to have found a mistake in "find" with the param "-links":
> 
> Apparently, only the second Column of the output of "ls" looks at what 
> is probably wrong with a directory!

If I understand correct, then you are saying that the second column of
the "ls"-formatted output shows a different number than the number you
have been searching for with "-links N", e.g.

  $ find -links 5 -ls
  17311045    4 drwxr-xr-x   5 berny    users        4096 Dec  9  2011 
./gnulib/.git/refs
  15481120    4 drwxr-xr-x   5 berny    users        4096 Dec  9  2011 
./.git/refs
  16913157    4 drwxr-xr-x   5 berny    users        4096 Mar 27 19:57 
./find/testsuite
  22825398   32 drwxr-xr-x   5 berny    users       32768 Mar 27 19:56 ./tests

This is the output format of "ls -dils" as mentioned in the manual.
The 2nd column isn't the number of links but instead the number of
1k-blocks used for this file/directory.  The number of links is in
column 4.

Have a nice day,
Berny