On Nov 8, 2011 1:01 PM, "Pandu Poluan" wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2011 9:02 AM, "Claudio Roberto França Pereira" <
spide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What about [[? I've seen scripts using [[ instead of only one [. Whats
the point/difference?
>
> AFAIK [[ was originally a bash-specific built-in comman
On Nov 8, 2011 9:02 AM, "Claudio Roberto França Pereira"
wrote:
>
> What about [[? I've seen scripts using [[ instead of only one [. Whats
the point/difference?
AFAIK [[ was originally a bash-specific built-in command that provides more
functionality than /bin/[, but can still use /bin/['s convol
What about [[? I've seen scripts using [[ instead of only one [. Whats the
point/difference?
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:59:21 -0400
Michael Mol wrote:
> > The binaries are usually POSIX-compliant, whereas the builtins may
> > include extra bashisms (which tend to break apps expecting just
> > the basic POSIX behaviour)
>
> I haven't encountered POSIX-dependent apps breaking on bash, but I
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:38:08 +0200
> Jesús J. Guerrero Botella wrote:
>
>> Yes, it's a different binary, and it's perfectly usual to find it in a
>> Linux system.
>>
>> But note that, at least in bash, you rarely will be using /usr/bin/[
>>
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:38:08 +0200
Jesús J. Guerrero Botella wrote:
> Yes, it's a different binary, and it's perfectly usual to find it in a
> Linux system.
>
> But note that, at least in bash, you rarely will be using /usr/bin/[
> unless you reference it using the full path (either in a relativ
Yes, it's a different binary, and it's perfectly usual to find it in a
Linux system.
But note that, at least in bash, you rarely will be using /usr/bin/[
unless you reference it using the full path (either in a relative or
absolute way). This is because bash has a builtin that takes over that
bina
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:42:00 -0700
schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés :
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:35 PM, William Kenworthy
> wrote:
> > I have been checking my system for some deep seated problems and in
> > the process, ran across the fact that "equery files
> > sys-apps/coreutils-8.7" shows a file
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 07:45 +0200, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
> William Kenworthy [11-10-12 07:40]:
> > I have been checking my system for some deep seated problems and in the
> > process, ran across the fact that "equery files sys-apps/coreutils-8.7"
> > shows a file included called "/usr/bin/["
William Kenworthy [11-10-12 07:40]:
> I have been checking my system for some deep seated problems and in the
> process, ran across the fact that "equery files sys-apps/coreutils-8.7"
> shows a file included called "/usr/bin/[" - thats right, left square
> bracket!
>
> Is that a bug or if real, w
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:35 PM, William Kenworthy wrote:
> I have been checking my system for some deep seated problems and in the
> process, ran across the fact that "equery files sys-apps/coreutils-8.7"
> shows a file included called "/usr/bin/[" - thats right, left square
> bracket!
>
> Is th
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:35 PM, William Kenworthy wrote:
> I have been checking my system for some deep seated problems and in the
> process, ran across the fact that "equery files sys-apps/coreutils-8.7"
> shows a file included called "/usr/bin/[" - thats right, left square
> bracket!
>
> Is th
I have been checking my system for some deep seated problems and in the
process, ran across the fact that "equery files sys-apps/coreutils-8.7"
shows a file included called "/usr/bin/[" - thats right, left square
bracket!
Is that a bug or if real, what would you use it for? It doesnt seem to
be o
13 matches
Mail list logo
