ls(1): correct mentioned colors
I am not sure that this change can go in like it is right now, especially when
renaming a color from "brown" to "yellow, usually shows up as brown".
But I put here for further discussion.
From the PR:
The ls man page describes the colors wrong. I checked ls's code, and indeed it
can and does use ANSI color, so the actual ANSI standard can be referenced for
color names and behavior:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-048.pdf
Especially since the man page also references ANSI in the LSCOLORS section.
Discovered this on 12.1-RELEASE-p3 but wrote and attached a patch for the ls.1
currently seen in the GitHub repository (presumably -current)
Important to note is that some terminals do not have separate colors for bold
and non-bold text. Some terminals do have separate colors, of course, but not all.
Semi-relatedly, and not dealt with in this patch or bug report:
LSCOLORS's format is deficient, anyway. Setting it to bC, Bc, or BC provides
the same output. The colors struct in ls's print.c has bold-status,
foreground color, and background color as three different items. The LSCOLORS
string should have them as three different characters too, rather than conflating
boldness with one of the colors.
Hence I think bc should be 0bc and Bc, bC, and BC should be 1bc
PR: 245270