There is an onus on you to use the appropriate mailing list. Bug-bash isn't
for make-ing your case, bug-bash is for the bugs.
Dave Finlay
On Dec 6, 2016 15:44, "Robert Durkacz" wrote:
On 6 December 2016 at 00:19, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> what evidence?
> [for shell scripting builds]
>
I su
On 6 December 2016 at 00:19, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> what evidence?
> [for shell scripting builds]
>
I suppose the evidence that you want is in the very same wikipedia article
about make, where it says precisely that shell scripts were used before
make came along.
However, please remember I a
Andreas Schwab wrote:
{ $prog 2>&1 >&3 | grep -v "$RE_filt" >&2; } 3>&1
Andreas.
Closer to my last failed case:
( echo -n >&3 $($prog >&3 2>&1 | grep -Pv "$re" >&2 ) ) 3>&1
Had tried not putting $prog in $(), but bash didn't like the parens...
At that point figured it was probably so
{ $prog 2>&1 >&3 | grep -v "$RE_filt" >&2; } 3>&1
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
Dennis Williamson wrote:
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/047 (search for "stdout intact")
Thanks!
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 4:09 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
>
> Is there a way, in bash, to filter stderr and let the
> filtered result continue on stderr with the original
> stdout being output on stdout?
>
> with prog being the program to filter, and RE_filt being the
> filtering expression, conceptually,
Is there a way, in bash, to filter stderr and let the
filtered result continue on stderr with the original
stdout being output on stdout?
with prog being the program to filter, and RE_filt being the
filtering expression, conceptually, I wanted to do something
like this:
$prog >&3 2>&1 |grep -v
