Closed dunnl closed 4 years ago
xa0c
commented
6 years ago Can't understand that f5910a6 commit either. Was using my own custom-modified version of dircolors.256dark since then. And actually looks like that commit just switched bold fonts to normal (01 to 00). While #44 issue is related to background colors.
uralets
commented
5 years ago can confirm - f5910a6 really is an unfortunate commit and looks just plain erroneous. @seebi
scotstan
commented
4 years ago Can confirm here too: f5910 was likely a mistake. Considering this issue was opened 2+ years ago, wondering if it's still being maintained?
seebi
commented
4 years ago ok, lets fix this
scotstan
commented
4 years ago Hey @seebi: I was just logging back in to send you a PR on this one, only to see it's already closed! Thanks for fixing.
As I was working on this last night, I had issues on macOS failing with gnu tar on unpacking two of the special files: nod-c and nod-b. With tar failing, the Makefile would quit, so I added a "-" at the beginning of the recipe step.
Anyway, here's my branch: https://github.com/scotstan/dircolors-solarized
I'm open to pulling back from your main and sending a new PR if you're interested.
seebi
commented
4 years ago sure, do this. thx
I don't understand the merge from issue #44. It would seem that the change was just to get rid of the bold font hierarchy that is still described in the README. I believe the user who submitted the change was simply having an issue whereby a particular terminal was not displaying bold fonts properly and simply giving them a dark background, but on Xfce4-term (e.g.) the commit simply gets rid of having bold fonts for certain files.
Submitting this as a new issue because I'm not sure which version is preferred by others, but anyway there's at least an inconsistency in the README vs the current state of the repo.