From owner-freebsd-questions  Sun Jan  1 06:13:57 1995
Return-Path: questions-owner
Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id GAA08822 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jan 1995 06:13:57 -0800
Received: from helix.nih.gov (helix.nih.gov [128.231.2.3]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id GAA08816 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Sun, 1 Jan 1995 06:13:55 -0800
Received: by helix.nih.gov (940715.SGI.52/1.35(m-sg-1.0))
	id AA02072; Sun, 1 Jan 95 09:13:44 -0500
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 95 09:13:44 -0500
From: crtb@helix.nih.gov (Chuck Bacon)
Message-Id: <9501011413.AA02072@helix.nih.gov>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Subject: Re: Why does ls report wrong creation date on symlinks?
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sender: questions-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

: >>I just discovered that "ls -l" reports the creation date incorrectly
: >>on symlinks.  It reports as the creation date of each symlink, the

	[...]

: the attributes of the parent directory are used instead.  See
: `man 7 symlink'.
: 
: Bruce

Apologies to DG!  I waxed acerbic at what appeared to be answers to
questions I hadn't asked.  Indeed, `man 7 symlink' tells the whole
story.  Another case of RTFM :-(

Still, when information is missing, isn't it generally a Bad Thing
to invent a fictitious quantity to report?

	Chuck Bacon -- crtb@helix.nih.gov