Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote:
>
> > I am bemoaning the fact that lesspipe is not directly usable
> > by me anymore, since all the stuff got added to it.
>
> I'm open to suggestions on how to change it so that everybody is
> happy...
>
> What about an environment variable about what items t
Hi,
Oh. Well, I have a local lessopen script that takes precedence
over the /usr/bin things. I like seeing as much of the stuff as
possible (like looking at tar files one can read the README file
without having to untar and read and delete stuff later?)
I do not think my particu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Manoj Srivastava, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
> I know that. The accepted way of using less used to be to use
> a upstream filter. Right now, it is done like so:
>__
>__>
On %M 0, Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote
(that I had a broken mutt setup...)
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> Manoj Srivastava, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>
> That's a reason not to make it a binary. Even reading a config file
> would probably be too slow. Hmm. Mayb
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 12:49:43AM -0700, Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> >This seems like a bad idea. "strings" is not the obvious information
> >to provide about an executable. (Consider size, objdump, od, hexdump,
> >et cetera).
>
> Okay. Sounds goo
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Stalder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> Uh, Manoj, if you don't want less to interpret things for,
Darren> just don't use lessopen. If you still want to use it, you can
Darren> just edit the lessopen script.
I know that. The accepted way of using less used t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Manoj Srivastava, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
> know how to do so. From the principle of least surprise, I say leave
> the default alone (I hate how it does tar zvvft already; I used to be
> able to look at text files in a tar.gz archive without
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Carl Mummert, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>useful information when you use it on different types of files-- gzip for
>gz files, tar -t for tar files, groff for manpages, etc... If I _wanted_
>to look at the raw data of a gzipped file, I could d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Richard Braakman, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>One reason I like less is that it's so fast. I sometimes use it on
>thousands of files at once. (For example, when searching a source
>package for uses of a particular identifier).
I've been thin
Hi,
>>"Carl" == Carl Mummert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Carl> Joey Hess wrote:
>> > I would also find it disorienting to less a binary executable and
>> get a long list of identifiers. I _expect_ a screen full of
>> garbage, and that "/lib/ld-linux.so.2" in a particular position :-)
Carl> What
Carl Mummert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But when you say, 'less binfile', what do you expect it to do?
Pretty much the same thing view binfile does.
Note also that the real problem lesspipe was designed for would be
better addressed by a compressed file system.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
David Welton wrote:
> zless, so, why not build on that and just use a different name. Or is
> there something that I am missing because of my late entry into the
> discussion (sorry)?
Background: when 'less' runs, it looks for an environment var called
"LESSOPEN" If it finds one, it uses the valu
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 04:15:51PM -0400, Carl Mummert wrote:
> David Welton wrote:
> > One of the things I like about Linux, and Unix in general, is that it
> > doesn't try to be smart where you don't expect it to.
>
> But when you say, 'less binfile', what do you expect it to do?
Show me the
David Welton wrote:
> One of the things I like about Linux, and Unix in general, is that it
> doesn't try to be smart where you don't expect it to.
But when you say, 'less binfile', what do you expect it to do?
I had thought that the idea of lesspipe is to have less give you more
useful informa
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 01:17:27PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> What would be the use of looking at a screen full of control characters?
>
>Because when I look at a binary with less, I *mean* to do
>that... usually to look for corruption (blocks of nulls) or things
>like *short* stri
> What would be the use of looking at a screen full of control characters?
Because when I look at a binary with less, I *mean* to do
that... usually to look for corruption (blocks of nulls) or things
like *short* strings or strings not in the text section, that
"strings" *won't find
> What would be the use of looking at a screen full of control characters?
Because when I look at a binary with less, I *mean* to do
that... usually to look for corruption (blocks of nulls) or things
like *short* strings or strings not in the text section, that
"strings" *won't find*.
> mentione
Joey Hess wrote:
> >
> > This seems like a bad idea. "strings" is not the obvious information
> > to provide about an executable. (Consider size, objdump, od, hexdump,
> > et cetera).
> >
> > I only use "strings" when I pipe through grep. When I use less it's
> > just as easy to search the fi
Richard Braakman wrote:
> > I've added the "if binary executable, use strings on it" to lessopen. I
> > could see marginal use for looking at the raw executable, so if anyone
> > has any objections, speak up before Saturday Night (-0800Z) or file a
> > bug against less and I'll take it out. (cc'i
Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote:
> I can't add the /proc entries since you don't know the full pathname of
> the file you are viewing. I could use `pwd` to find out what directory
> I'm in. If you'd like me to do that, just say so but it would involve
> another fork/exec for every file. (All the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I can't add the /proc entries since you don't know the full pathname of
the file you are viewing. I could use `pwd` to find out what directory
I'm in. If you'd like me to do that, just say so but it would involve
another fork/exec for every file. (All the othe
21 matches
Mail list logo
