Almut Behrens wrote:
> (It's called from within launch(), which is handling the option -exec)
>
> This function is simply not present in the old sources (4.1.20).
>
> Well, I guess it's worth filing a bug report, to let the original
> authors figure out what it was that made them add this code -
Andrew Schulman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:51:07AM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>>
>>> find ... -print0 | xargs -0r rm -i
>>
>> This won't work because rm -i reads for confirmation from stdin and rm
>> has no stdin when it's run via xargs.
>
> Hm, you're right. Well one alternati
Almut Behrens wrote:
>> I'm running "testing", and dpkg says I'm using bash 3.0-15 and findutils
>> 4.2.22-1.
>
> It seems to be a bug (or feature?) of find.
> (I can even reproduce the behaviour when moving the debian-testing find
> binary to a somewhat older SuSE box -- where the command in que
> P.S. The reason that "find ... -print0 | xargs -0r rm -i" exhibits the
> same behaviour is a different one: Here, find's stdin filehandle would
> somehow have to be passed through to rm (via xargs, which in turn has
> its stdin attached to find's stdout), in order for rm to be able to
> read fr
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:51:07AM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>
>> find ... -print0 | xargs -0r rm -i
>
> This won't work because rm -i reads for confirmation from stdin and rm
> has no stdin when it's run via xargs.
Hm, you're right. Well one alternative that will definitely work is
fin
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 12:41:48PM +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> michael wrote:
> > Well on 'sarge', under bash, the
> > find . -name 'whatever' -exec rm -i {} ";"
> > works as expected for me, but the above example exhibits the same
> > performance as you note (I'm no 'xargs' expert and can's see wh
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:51:07AM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> find ... -print0 | xargs -0r rm -i
This won't work because rm -i reads for confirmation from stdin and rm
has no stdin when it's run via xargs.
--
Dave Carrigan
Seattle, WA, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.rudedog.org/ | ICQ:
michael wrote:
> Well on 'sarge', under bash, the
> find . -name 'whatever' -exec rm -i {} ";"
> works as expected for me, but the above example exhibits the same
> performance as you note (I'm no 'xargs' expert and can's see what the
> '-0r' option is meant to do)
>
> If I were you I'd check t
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 11:36 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> Andrew Schulman wrote:
>
> >> Why did this behaviour change, and how can I fix my script?
> >
> > An alternative is
> >
> > find ... -print0 | xargs -0r rm -i
>
> I get the same problem with that!
>
> $ find . -name '*~' -print0 |xargs -0r
Andrew Schulman wrote:
>> Why did this behaviour change, and how can I fix my script?
>
> An alternative is
>
> find ... -print0 | xargs -0r rm -i
I get the same problem with that!
$ find . -name '*~' -print0 |xargs -0r rm -i
rm: remove regular file `./.emacs.d/auto-save-list/.saves-20203-viln
Dave Ewart wrote:
>> Recently it stopped working because "rm -i" in "find..." no longer
>> appears
>> connected to the console for input. Typing "find -name '*~' -exec rm -i
>> '{}' ';'" directly prints a list of rm-questions, doesn't get an answer,
>> and so does nothing.
>>
>> Why did this beh
> I have a script called texclean as follows:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> if [ -z "$1" ]; then
> DEPTH=1;
> else
> DEPTH=$1;
> fi;
> for PATTERN in '*~' '*.log' '*.aux' '*.bbl' '*.blg' '*.toc' \
>'*.lof' '*.lot' '#*#';
> do
> find . -maxdepth $DEPTH -name "$PATTERN" -exec rm -i '{}
On Tuesday, 05.07.2005 at 10:03 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> I have a script called texclean as follows:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> if [ -z "$1" ]; then
> DEPTH=1;
> else
> DEPTH=$1;
> fi;
> for PATTERN in '*~' '*.log' '*.aux' '*.bbl' '*.blg' '*.toc' \
>'*.lof' '*.lot' '#*#';
> do
>
I have a script called texclean as follows:
#!/bin/sh
if [ -z "$1" ]; then
DEPTH=1;
else
DEPTH=$1;
fi;
for PATTERN in '*~' '*.log' '*.aux' '*.bbl' '*.blg' '*.toc' \
'*.lof' '*.lot' '#*#';
do
find . -maxdepth $DEPTH -name "$PATTERN" -exec rm -i '{}' ';';
done
Recently i
I think you simply miss --ignore-case in second grep (first grep find it
but dont convert the case so the second can't find the pattern)
Try add -i to the second grep.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Chris Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #!/bin/bash
> /usr/bin/find /usr/lib/ecartis/lists/ -name users -print \
> -exec grep --ignore-case "$1" {} \; | grep -B 1 "$1"
Odd, it works fine for me. Are you sure there is no other factor?
-- Thomas Adam
=
"The Linux Weekend Mechanic" -
Perhaps I am looking straight through things, if so, I'm sorry. I
have effectively a one liner shell script that I want to run to see
if any text (typically an Email address) is in any file named "users"
in any directory below a particular directory, easy I thought:
#!/bin/bash
/usr/bin/find /
thanks for the massive response i got from my find -exec question i ended
up going with martin's suggestion of find . -type t | xargs chmod ug+wx
..it executed a full 2 minutes quicker then using find -exec.
thanks again!! woohoo.
nate
[mailto:[
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 11:48:49PM -0800, aphro wrote
> What i wanna do ..is 2 things
>
> find all files in a directory tree and chmod them 644
>
> find all directories in a directory tree and chmod them 775
>
> and i'm trying to do it with the find -exec command.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, aphro wrote:
> What i wanna do ..is 2 things
>
> find all files in a directory tree and chmod them 644
>
> find all directories in a directory tree and chmod them 775
[...]
> find . -exec chmod u+wx {} -type f
>
> find . -exec chmod u+wx {} -type f
The -exec portion of the command must be terminated by `;', which must
also be escaped to the shell. As in:
find . -exec chmod u+wx {} \; -type f
> What i wanna do ..is 2 things
>
> find all files in a directory tree and chmod them 644
>
> find . -exec chmod u+wx {} -type f
>
try this:
find . -type f -exec echo {} \;
I've replaced the chmod with a painless payload so you can test it out
first. the \; is requ
What i wanna do ..is 2 things
find all files in a directory tree and chmod them 644
find all directories in a directory tree and chmod them 775
and i'm trying to do it with the find -exec command. For the directory
part i did get this working:
chmod 7755 `find . -type d`
but for the file
Hi all!
I reply myself here
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Ulisses Alonso wrote:
> >
> >Hi all
> >
> >I would like to know if there is a way to make something like this
> >
> >find -exec command1 {} | command2 \;
>
> I t
Ulisses Alonso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all
>
> I would like to know if there is a way to make something like this
>
> find -exec command1 {} | command2 \;
>
xargs?
HTH,
Jens
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Key ID: 2048/
Ulisses Alonso wrote:
>
>Hi all
>
>I would like to know if there is a way to make something like this
>
>find -exec command1 {} | command2 \;
I take it you want to run the pipeline `command1 | command2' on each file.
I don't think you can do this with
Hi all
I would like to know if there is a way to make something like this
find -exec command1 {} | command2 \;
Thanks in advance,
Ulisses
PD: Oracle8 and Informix will be ported to Linux!
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?980717.whorlinux.htm
27 matches
Mail list logo
