On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Ray Lai wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:45AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > Matthias Kilian wrote:
> > >
> > > > And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
> > > >
> > > > BTW: if this is a contest
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:39:45AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Matthias Kilian wrote:
> >
> > > And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
> > >
> > > BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
> > > standard
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Michael Schmidt wrote:
> Matthias Kilian wrote:
>
> > And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
> >
> > BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
> > standard tools:
> >
> > $ find . -type f | sed '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@grep -l -- foo @' | s
Matthias Kilian wrote:
And watch out for silly file names containing whitespace.
BTW: if this is a contest on creative use of find(1) and other
standard tools:
$ find . -type f | sed '[EMAIL PROTECTED]@grep -l -- foo @' | sh
Yes, this isn't robust against whitespace, either PLUS it's
ineffici
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 06:32:53PM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
> > > Instead of
> > > rm -f $(find ./ -type f -print)
> >
> > Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
> > probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
> >>
> >> Time to write your own program in C instead if the time to invoke
> >> rm is taking too much time.
> >
> > No point, xargs does what I need it to do, and is much more efficient
> >
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Time to write your own program in C instead if the time to invoke
> rm is taking too much time.
rm *is* a small program written in C. You need to consider how the
tools actually invoke it - think about it for a while.
-d
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:00 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
Time to write your own program in C instead if the time to invoke
rm is taking too much time.
No point, xargs does what I need it to do, and is much more efficient
than having find execute rm itself. The fewer times you call execve(2)
the bet
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> > Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
> > probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
>
> Why not use -exec in find?
>
> find . -type f -name tt
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:53 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
>
> > On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> >>> Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
> >>
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
> > Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
> > probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
>
> Why not use -exec in find?
>
> find . -type f -na
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:53 PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
On 2/13/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
Why n
On 2/13/06, Damien Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why so many people is using xargs ?
> >
> > I mean for instance why bother use xargs AND a pipe to do somthing like this
> > :
> >
> > find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
> > Instead of
> > rm -f $(find ./ -type f -print)
>
> Because that
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Damien Miller wrote:
Because that will fail when there are too many arguments, and will
probably break on filenames with spaces (use xargs -0 for these).
Why not use -exec in find?
find . -type f -name ttt -exec rm {}\;
-- Pinski
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, noob lenoobie wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> >(b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
>
> Why so many people is using xargs ?
>
> I mean for instance why bother use xargs AND a pipe to do somthing like this
> :
>
> find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Matthias Kilian wrote:
>(b) pipeing to xargs(1) may be faster.
Why so many people is using xargs ?
I mean for instance why bother use xargs AND a pipe to do somthing like this
:
find ./ -type f -print | xargs -i rm -f
Instead of
rm -f $(find ./ -type f -print)
?
Richard.
On 2006-02-13 18:10:53 -0500, Tim Donahue wrote:
> As done by xargs?
> > grep foo 1
> > grep foo 2
> > grep foo 3
Any arguments specified on the command line are given to the utility upon
each invocation, followed by some number of the arguments read from stan-
dard input. The uti
On Monday 13 February 2006 17:13, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2006/02/13 16:53, Jason Crawford wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0700, Diana Eichert wrote:
> > > > find /usr/src -name "*.[c|h]" -exec grep 'bpf.h' /dev/null {
18 matches
Mail list logo
