On Dec 3, 2007 12:26 PM, Vitaly V. Ch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 >
bash-3.1# /usr/bin/printf "%s\0" * bash: /usr/bin/printf: Argument list too long bash-3.1# > > > > > > > > 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
