On Dec 3, 2007 12:06 PM, Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Bob Proulx wrote: > >> Vitaly V. Ch wrote: > >>> As I understand ls require null-separated format of output stream > which > >>> will suitable for xargs. > >>> > >>> in this case I systematically use find instead of ls. > >> > >> Your message seems to be garbled and I, and perhaps others on the > >> mailing list too, cannot understand what you are trying to say. If > >> you have a bug please describe the problem such that we can recreated > >> it. If you are requesting a feature then try to state the feature > >> request in such a way that other people can understand it. Thanks. > > > > It reads to me like a request for ls to produce null-separated output, > > so that > > > > $ ls -0 . > > This comes close: > > $ printf "%s\0" *
as far as I understand it's will not work if the total size of filenames in current directory is more then 32K bytes > > > Andreas. > > -- > Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 > "And now for something completely different." > _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
