On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:49:20AM +0200, oset wrote:
> raf wrote: > ... | xargs echo cmd ... Good hack. Thing is, I tried
> it before and it did not work. That is why I strayed the whole topic.
> Now it works, so thats OK. There is a problem though: $ echo a >
> a.txt; echo b > b.txt; echo c
raf wrote: > ... | xargs echo cmd ... Good hack. Thing is, I tried it
before and it did not work. That is why I strayed the whole topic. Now it
works, so thats OK. There is a problem though: $ echo a > a.txt; echo b
> b.txt; echo c > "c with spaces.txt" $ echo * | xargs echo
gzip |
raf wrote: can't easily read your response because of the formatting and
html character encoding I dont know why it happened, apologize. I guess due
to pasteing from clipboard. If I write it 'manually' in client it will
likely not happen. I think what you are trying to achieve might loo
On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 03:30:22AM +0200, oset wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 07:27:24PM +0200, oset
> wrote: I would appreciate you to not include
> someones email address in a public mail list letter. I have enough
> spam, I do not need more. > You can. Just replace the actual
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 07:27:24PM +0200, oset
wrote:I would appreciate you to not include someones email address in a
public mail list letter. I have enough spam, I do not need more. > You
can. Just replace the actual command with "sh -c 'echo
ACTUAL_COMMAND'". I cannot
On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 07:27:24PM +0200, oset wrote:
> Often, when user uses bit more complex syntax with xargs (or find -exec, for
> that matter) the command spectacularly fails, and they dont know why. It
> would be beneficial to be able to mock run a command - just print what is to
> be
Often, when user uses bit more complex syntax with xargs (or find -exec, for
that matter) the command spectacularly fails, and they dont know why. It
would be beneficial to be able to mock run a command - just print what is to be
run, so user knows what exactly is passed to the program, so the