> "EB" == Eric Blake writes:
EB> Yes, I think your reading of POSIX shows we have a bug in xargs.
Go get em'! I mean how can anybody use the thing with all that junk
erupting in one's face in the simplest case of -p with no redirection
etc. etc. Thanks!
On 07/31/2013 04:00 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 07/31/2013 07:10 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 07/31/2013 11:01 AM, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
>>> $ seq 111|xargs -n 5 -p
>
>> Sorry, but this is not xargs' fault. You asked xargs to spawn multiple
>> processed in parallel, [...]
>
Hi Eric,
On 07/31/2013 07:10 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 11:01 AM, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
>> $ seq 111|xargs -n 5 -p
> Sorry, but this is not xargs' fault. You asked xargs to spawn multiple
> processed in parallel, [...]
I'm not sure:
the OP used lower-case -p, so xargs is spawni
On 07/31/2013 11:01 AM, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> What good is this?
>
> $ seq 111|xargs -n 5 -p
> echo 1 2 3 4 5 ?...
> echo 6 7 8 9 10 ?...
> echo 11 12 13 14 15 ?...y
> echo 16 17 18 19 20 ?...11 12 13 14 15
>
> You need to do the operation first before issuing the next prompt!
Sorry, but
What good is this?
$ seq 111|xargs -n 5 -p
echo 1 2 3 4 5 ?...
echo 6 7 8 9 10 ?...
echo 11 12 13 14 15 ?...y
echo 16 17 18 19 20 ?...11 12 13 14 15
You need to do the operation first before issuing the next prompt!
It should look like
$ seq 111|xargs -n 5 -p
echo 1 2 3 4 5 ?...
echo 6 7 8 9 10
