Randall R Schulz wrote: > Max, > > At 13:12 2003-02-02, Max Bowsher wrote: >> Elfyn McBratney wrote: >>>> Perhaps ... but I'm not running under bash and never have. Did I >>>> miss a documented restriction that the programs *only* run under >>>> bash? >>> >>> It depends on the package. With something like grep you cannot (?) >>> call a egrep from cmd.exe/command.com per se as it is a symbolic >>> link to grep.exe (a windows shortcut) but you could call it from >>> bash >> >> Ah, but since it is created by setup, it is a system-cookie type >> symlink, not a windows-shortcut type symlink. > > On my system both egrep and fgrep are old-style Cygwin-only symlinks. > But some of the symlinks in my Cygwin bin directory are the new > Windows shortcut-based symlinks. > > Perhaps this mixture occurs for me because my Cygwin installation > predates the debut of the Windows-shortcut-based symlinks. Or could it > be because some of the symlinks are created by post-install scripts > and are new-style and others are created by the tar code embedded in > the Cygwin Setup.exe installer and are the old kind?
The 2nd. >>>> bash -c /bin/egrep >>> >>> within your batch scripts. >> >> What about grep -E ? (Which is preferred anyway for maximum >> portability.) > > (Oh?) IIRC, POSIX dropped the requirement for egrep and fgrep. Libtool has been converting egrep -> "grep -E" and fgrep -> "grep -F". Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
