ls --color doesn't recognize an arc archive as an archive

[zapman]

When listing the content of a directory with ls --color an arc archive isn't recognized as an such and isn't displayed with the appropriate colour. The following terminal output should give an idea:

ubuntu@ubuntu:~/test$ ls
sources.list
ubuntu@ubuntu:~/test$ tar cfz sources.taz sources.list
ubuntu@ubuntu:~/test$ arc a sources.arc sources.list
Creating new archive: sources.arc
Adding file: sources.list analyzing, crunched, done. (29%)
ubuntu@ubuntu:~/test$ ls
sources.arc sources.list sources.taz

Note that sources.taz would be correctly displayed in red, but not sources .arc which nevertheless is an archive and should also be displayed with the same colour. So the $LS_COLORS environment variable needs to be adjusted accordingly by default (the correct value to add would probably be "01;31", and arc is absent from the output of dircolors -p).

ProblemType: BugDistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: coreutils 8.13-3ubuntu3
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-29.46-generic-pae 3.2.24
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-29-generic-pae i686
ApportVersion: 2.0.1-0ubuntu12
Architecture: i386
CasperVersion: 1.315
Date: Sun Dec 9 06:33:54 2012LiveMediaBuild: Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS "Precise Pangolin" - Release i386 (20120817.3)
ProcEnviron:
 TERM=xterm
 PATH=(custom, no user)
 LANG=en_US.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bashSourcePackage: coreutils
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

[C de-Avillez (hggdh2)]

Confirmed on Raring (coreutils 8.20, package version 8.20-3ubuntu5).

A patch would be welcome.

[Javier López (javier-lopez)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. I was able to reproduce in the last Ubuntu version, Raring 13.04, looking at the code seems like the problem can be solved by adding:

diff --git a/src/dircolors.hin b/src/dircolors.hin
index 6dfd113..e56c3c3 100644
--- a/src/dircolors.hin
+++ b/src/dircolors.hin
@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ EXEC 01;32
 #.csh 01;32

  # archives or compressed (bright red)
+.arc 01;31
 .tar 01;31
 .tgz 01;31
 .arj 01;3

I'll forward it to upstream, thanks again for you report

[Javier López (javier-lopez)]

This bug has been reported to the developers of the software. You can track it and make comments at:

http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13703

[Javier López (javier-lopez)]

This bug has been fixed in upstream:

http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13703

---
Ubuntu Bug Squad volunteer triager
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad

[C de-Avillez (hggdh2)]

This bug is not Fix Released -- we still do not have the fix in Ubuntu. Upstream is fixed, but not Ubuntu.

Remarking Triaged.

Note: when changing status or importance, please always add a comment explaining why the change.

[Javier López (javier-lopez)]

I'm not sure if we should patch this in Ubuntu, it's a minor issue and eventually it will make its way to Debian and Ubuntu since the patch has been accepted in upstream, anyway I attach a debdiff in case you think we need to get it in.

[C de-Avillez (hggdh2)]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Javier P.L. <email address hidden> wrote:

> I'm not sure if we should patch this in Ubuntu, it's a minor issue and
> eventually it will make its way to Debian and Ubuntu since the patch has
> been accepted in upstream, anyway I attach a debdiff in case you think
> we need to get it in.
>
>
I do not see this as a patch-worthy issue. But the whole point is the bug
is not fixed on our coreutils, so it lives on.

Thank you, BTW, for your work on this.

[Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot (crichton)]

The attachment "coreutils_8.20-3ubuntu6.debdiff" seems to be a debdiff. The ubuntu-sponsors team has been subscribed to the bug report so that they can review and hopefully sponsor the debdiff. If the attachment isn't a patch, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are member of the ~ubuntu-sponsors, unsubscribe the team.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by ~brian-murray, for any issue please contact him.]

[Barry Warsaw (barry)]

FWIW, I applied the debdiff in #7 and built it locally (after disabling a few tests that fail in my schroot). This did not fix the problem. I think this is a minor enough bug and the fact that it's fixed in Debian (and will eventually make its way to Ubuntu) makes it not really worth patching.