On Sun, 2022-12-11 at 12:48 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > On Sun, 2022-12-11 at 08:54 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 08:16:35AM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > That said. Greg, I was also shaken by your roaring tone. > > > > > > Yeah, well, he was told the same thing, repeatedly, by multiple people, > > > and somehow he managed to ignore every single instance of it. > > > > That is not true at all. > > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/12/msg00274.html>: > > Try echo -n ${TEST} at the end.
My reply, from yesterday, to that is here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/12/msg00277.html > > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/12/msg00275.html>: > > The second echo command (the local one) produces a newline. Since you > did not give it any parameters, that's all it produces. In that same email you stated "It does not produce a carriage return, unless you're on Windows." and I knew I wasn't on Windows so that couldn't be the issue. At that time I did not know that it was impossible for you to incorrectly assume that someone else was doing someone different than what you knew them to be doing. :) > > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/12/msg00279.html>: > > Because the second echo in the first line does not have a -n. > > All the ssh stuff is superfluous. > I did read that email yesterday, and as with the earlier one, the -n was not a workable solution. Nit: It is quite telling that Charles mentioned the superfluous text, which you quoted above, Greg, yet you were also bemoaning around the same time saying "I'm waiting for the question to change, and then that one will be relevant". It's like no question is good enough for some folks on debian-user@. I'll note that my question remains unchanged, and a workable answer has been provided. > > Those are the direct responses to your initial message. I didn't even > have to go beyond the first layer of replies to get THREE instances of > people telling you the SAME thing -- that your "extra newline" was being > produced by your echo command. As you can see above, I had already read and responded appropriately, yesterday. Read on for details of the solution that does work. > > I'm fairly sure there are more instances in the next layers of replies. Please do share if you are certain they exist. > > All of them are telling you the SAME THING. You just can't hear it. > Nice, more snark. I'll say it the final time, so that you can see it, -n will not work (and I know you know this). The thing that does work is dumping the output to a TXT file and reading the TXT file elsewhere (instead of using a variable). You, Greg, introduced that possible use-case in the very same email where you berated me for not reading the answers yet. Very odd how your head works. ;) All the best, -Jim P.
