Bug 70985

Summary:	/etc/DIRCOLORS.xterm not optimized for dark backgrounds
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Public Beta	Reporter:	Mukund Sivaraman <muks>
Component:	fileutils	Assignee:	Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	limbo
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2002-08-07 19:46:50 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Mukund Sivaraman 2002-08-07 16:25:06 UTC

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722

Description of problem:
/etc/DIRCOLORS.xterm, which appears to be a new addition to beta2 of limbo is
poorly optimized for dark GUI terminal backgrounds, which makes it very
difficult to read. The default DIRCOLORS work well with both dark and light
backgrounds. Alternatively you could provide another DIRCOLORS for dark
backgrounds, but in any case this must be default as most users use dark
backgrounds and the /etc/DIRCOLORS.xterm currently in limbo is very poor for
dark backgrounds.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Set background of gnome-terminal to a dark colour.
2. SSH into a limbo box
3. ls in a directory with subdirectories and other files in it (with the default
--color=tty)


Additional info:

Comment 1 Mike A. Harris 2002-08-07 19:42:58 UTC

I've no idea what package is supplying /etc/DIRCOLORS.xterm, but it
is not XFree86 packaging.

Please run:  rpm -qf /etc/DIRCOLORS.xterm

And then reassign this bug to the package that the rpm query
shows.

Comment 2 Mike A. Harris 2002-08-07 19:46:22 UTC

Ah, nevermind..  it's fileutils.  Found it.

Comment 3 Bernhard Rosenkraenzer 2002-08-29 20:21:03 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 71331 ***