Re: 'find' portability problem

2004-08-03 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Stephan" == Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> I think so. The find command on Solaris 2.7 prints all files Stephan> otherwise. I'm not sure if this makes sense in any case, but Stephan> it is like that. Old BSD find did nothing when no action like Stephan> "-print" or "-ls"

Re: 'find' portability problem

2004-07-15 Thread Stephan Witt
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Stephan" == Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> if you call me a nit-picker... maybe, you're right. But: Stephan> I wrote "find path-name-list \( -name foo -o -name bar \) Stephan> -print". Stephan> The command "find src \( -name '*.[Cch]' -or -name '*.C.

Re: 'find' portability problem

2004-07-15 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Stephan" == Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> if you call me a nit-picker... maybe, you're right. But: Stephan> I wrote "find path-name-list \( -name foo -o -name bar \) Stephan> -print". Stephan> The command "find src \( -name '*.[Cch]' -or -name '*.C.in' Stephan> \)" is

Re: 'find' portability problem

2004-07-15 Thread Stephan Witt
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Bennett" == Bennett Helm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bennett> On Jul 15, 2004, at 9:10 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Stephan" == Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> as far as I know I would do it like that: Stephan> find path-name-list \( -name foo -o

Re: 'find' portability problem

2004-07-15 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Bennett" == Bennett Helm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Bennett> On Jul 15, 2004, at 9:10 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>> "Stephan" == Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Stephan> as far as I know I would do it like that: >> Stephan> find path-name-list \( -name foo -o -name ba

Re: 'find' portability problem

2004-07-15 Thread Bennett Helm
On Jul 15, 2004, at 9:10 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Stephan" == Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> as far as I know I would do it like that: Stephan> find path-name-list \( -name foo -o -name bar \) -print Indeed, thanks. Nirmal, would find src \( -name '*.[Cch]' -or -name '*

Re: 'find' portability problem

2004-07-15 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Stephan" == Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> as far as I know I would do it like that: Stephan> find path-name-list \( -name foo -o -name bar \) -print Indeed, thanks. Nirmal, would find src \( -name '*.[Cch]' -or -name '*.C.in' \) work? If it does, I will use that. JM

Re: 'find' portability problem (was Re: LyX and OS X)

2004-07-13 Thread Stephan Witt
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: "Nirmal" == Nirmal Govind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hello lyx-devel, I continue this private discussion with Nirmal and Bennett here, since I am sure somebody will come up with the one true find syntax we need. The problem is that compilation hangs in po, and the reas

'find' portability problem (was Re: LyX and OS X)

2004-07-13 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> "Nirmal" == Nirmal Govind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hello lyx-devel, I continue this private discussion with Nirmal and Bennett here, since I am sure somebody will come up with the one true find syntax we need. The problem is that compilation hangs in po, and the reason is the following f