Eliot Moss wrote: > On 4/25/2012 6:29 AM, Ronald Fischer wrote: > > Why do I get a different output in the following two invocations of > > xargs? I had expected that the relative order of the command line > > switches (-I, -L) would not matter: > > > > $ ls | xargs -I DIR -L 1 echo DIR > > DIR wontprint.txt > > DIR x.cmd > > DIR x.pl > > DIR x.sh > > $ ls | xargs -L 1 -I DIR echo DIR > > wontprint.txt > > x.cmd > > x.pl > > x.sh > > My guess is that this behavior is passed on from the upstream > implementation and is not specific to cygwin, which means that > the appeal for a change would probably need to be lodged > elsewhere ...
I've just verified that this behaviour exists on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.2, so this is not a Cygwin problem. I suspect you'll want to raise this on the findutils mailing list; from the bottom of `man xargs`: > The best way to report a bug is to use the form at > http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=findutils. The reason for this is > that you will then be able to track progress in fixing the problem. > Other comments about xargs(1) and about the findutils package in > general can be sent to the bug-findutils mailing list. To join the > list, send email to bug-findutils-requ...@gnu.org. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
