On Thu 01 Jun 2017 at 17:46:31 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:23:58AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > On Thu 01 Jun 2017 at 09:20:08 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote: > > > On 06/01/2017 08:14 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > >Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > >On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 07:22:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > >>I'm working on a problem that requires as input an association of > > > >>disk partitions and their "label" (in gparted sense). > > > >> > > > >>I already have blkid and lsblk. They are obviously designed for > > > >>different purposes. They both _can_ supply the desired information. > > > >>Neither is ideal for me. > > > > > > > >You're always so whimsical :) > > > > > > *ROFL* I disagree. > > > > I agree very much. > > > > > My questions may be weird, obtuse, or convoluted. Rarely, if ever, > > > whimsical ;) > > > What people have said about my world view for >70 yrs best left ... > > > > The problem with whimsical is that it has two meanings. From the web, > > for ease of cut and paste, > > > > 1. > > playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing and amusing way. > > "a whimsical sense of humor" > > > > No, not that. > > > > 2. > > acting or behaving in a capricious manner. > > "the whimsical arbitrariness of autocracy" > > > > Yes, exactly that. You read people's answers and then pronounce upon > > them in accordance with your thinking, which we're not party to > > because you rarely if ever reveal it. > > See? I meant it even slightly differently. From wiktionary: > > Given to whimsy; capricious; odd; peculiar; playful; light-hearted or > amusing. > > For me, it's something between odd, peculiar, playful and amusing. > I *know* it's some kind of emergent behaviour, and not ill-intentioned > at all. It makes (for me) interaction more difficult, but more > enriching at the same time. And somewhat joyful. So there you go. > > > As an example, you wrote above: > > > > > >>I already have blkid and lsblk. They are obviously designed for > > > >>different purposes. They both _can_ supply the desired information. > > > >>Neither is ideal for me. > > > > with not a hint of what would be ideal. > > Context. I once had a boss who functioned as Richard does. He had > a very complicated context in his mind, and when posing a question, > he offered lots of hints, but with some regularity not those his > interlocutors needed. Once I got over that I learnt that this kind > of interaction can be enriching and fun.
There's context here too: we're not meeting face to face, nor in private, nor is Richard the boss and this list his employees. > People are quite different, and that is a Good Thing :) > > > Right. So are we meant to spend time looking for different commands > > which, importantly, must reveal must either reveal more information > > or the same information in a different way, in order that perchance > > it might be more ideal for you? > > You always have the choice to throw up your hands (as I did in this > case). > > [...] > > > Oh, so my question above was wrong. We're expected to find _all_ > > commands, regardless of whether they might be more ideal or not. > > Don't take that personally. I don't think it's meant like that > (Richard: I'm taking the liberty of second-guessing you. I hope > you set me straight if I'm too wrong!). Well, we're probably wasting our time anyway. If you take a look at https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00234.html there's a productive command there that the OP has already forgotten, which AIUI reads the files that I mentioned (though I stand to be corrected; does /run contain the db that udevadm interrogates, or is there a yet deeper db?). Cheers, David.
