On 02/07/2010 03:02 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> I completely agree, but in this case I wanted a highly special-purpose
> script that would only ever be run in a specific directory, and didn't
> overload any system command.
>
> I decided just to put it in my ~/bin, where it works fine.
>
>
On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 13:54 -0700, Greg Woods wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 23:24 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > have . in your
> > $PATH. I recall somewhere, sometime a warning against thatbut
> I've
> > ignored it for years and haven't had a problem. I even forgot what
> the
> > warning was
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 23:24 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> have . in your
> $PATH. I recall somewhere, sometime a warning against thatbut I've
> ignored it for years and haven't had a problem. I even forgot what the
> warning was all about.
Generally it's not a good thing to have a different co
On 02/06/2010 03:44 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 09:25 -0600, inode0 wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
>> wrote:
>>> Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
>>> scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see wh
On 02/06/2010 08:34 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
>>> scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
>>> here. Is senility setting it?
>>>
>>> $
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 09:25 -0600, inode0 wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
> > Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
> > scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
> > here. Is senility setting it?
> >
> >
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 10:26 -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
> > scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
> > here. Is senility setting it?
>
> It may be, but it brings with
Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
>> scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
>> here. Is senility setting it?
>>
>
> It may be, but it brings with it many benefits -- like
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
>> scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
>> here. Is senility setting it?
>>
>> $ cat > tst
>> #!/bin/sh
>> echo foo
>> $ chmod +x tst
>> $ ls -l
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
> scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
> here. Is senility setting it?
It may be, but it brings with it many benefits -- like being able to
eat dessert twice because you
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
> scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
> here. Is senility setting it?
>
> $ cat > tst
> #!/bin/sh
> echo foo
> $ chmod +x tst
> $ ls -l
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
> scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
> here. Is senility setting it?
>
> $ cat > tst
> #!/bin/sh
> echo foo
> $ chmod +x tst
> $ ls -l tst
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 poc poc 19 201
*Try:
#./tst
#file tst
tst: Bourne shell script text executable
*--
Best Wishes,
Waleed Harbi
Dream | Do | Be
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
> scripts on and off for severa
Can anyone explain why this doesn't work? I've been writing shell
scripts on and off for several decades and I can't see what's going on
here. Is senility setting it?
$ cat > tst
#!/bin/sh
echo foo
$ chmod +x tst
$ ls -l tst
-rwxrwxr-x 1 poc poc 19 2010-02-06 10:22 tst
$ type tst
tst is ./tst
$ ts
14 matches
Mail list logo
