not a bug report but need help
hi (I've asked on comp.unix.shell but got no real help) anyone have any idea on how to achieve this -- I'm facing a very stubborn "configure" file that I spend all day try to modify, but to avail... anyway, all I need to do is to replace every call to gcc -La1 -La2 ... -Ib1 -Ib2 ... to gcc -La2 -La1 ... -Ib2 -Ib1 ... in other words, reverse the "include" and "library" lists. I can reverse lists easily by any programming language, but I need to intercept the commands and make changes before it's executed. I don't think bash has "programmable" alias. Also I've looked at bashdb, it's not clear it's intended purpose is for intercepting commands. (as of today, I've resolved the issue by other means. but it would be nice to have a feature like this to deal with stubborn packages and configures.) Thanks.
Re: not a bug report but need help
On 10/8/08, naruto canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi > > (I've asked on comp.unix.shell but got no real help) > > anyone have any idea on how to achieve this -- > I'm facing a very stubborn "configure" file that I spend all day try > to modify, but to avail... > anyway, all I need to do is to replace every call to gcc -La1 -La2 ... > -Ib1 -Ib2 ... to > gcc -La2 -La1 ... -Ib2 -Ib1 ... in other words, reverse the "include" > and "library" lists. > > I can reverse lists easily by any programming language, > but I need to intercept the commands and make changes before it's executed. > > I don't think bash has "programmable" alias. > > Also I've looked at bashdb, it's not clear it's intended purpose is > for intercepting commands. > > (as of today, I've resolved the issue by other means. but it would be > nice to have a feature like this to deal with stubborn packages and > configures.) > > Thanks. > I've got a solution from the newgroup. ignore my post.
Re: feature request: "wait --free-slot" for poor man's parallelization
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you start working with compute queues you will find that there are > endless different ways that people want to define job slots. It isn't > a simple problem. Sure, but for the scenario I have in mind, perfection is not necessary. What I'm looking for is a way to utilize my two (or four) cores for "do it right now" tasks. It doesn't really matter if I'm actually running four or eight processes--the situation I'm trying to avoid is starting up 400, which will swamp my machine. As for coding it up in a library, yes, that would be possible. This isn't nearly as useful as having it under my fingers on every Linux box I ever encounter (which would happen if the option were added to wait). It's kind of like the 'watch' command--very handy, but not worth the time to install if it's not present on a machine you encounter. Obviously, since I'm not offering to code this up, my opinion carries very little weight. I was hoping someone might decide they'd like the feature, too, and add it. (I suspect that it would actually be a very small change for someone who knows the bash code.) Regards, Mike
