On Monday 21 June 2004 10:15 pm, M.Balakrishna Pillai wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 07:05:57AM +0530, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: > > On Monday 07 June 2004 6:04 am, Sudev Barar wrote: > > > > cat physictools-1.0.iso?? > physictools-1.0.iso > > > > > > ^ > > > > > > Should this not be >> ? > > hi all > issuing the command > cat physictools-1.0.isoaa > physictools-1.0.iso > cat physictools-1.0.isoab > physictools-1.0.iso > cat physictools-1.0.isoac > physictools-1.0.iso > etc does not solve the problem. Each command overwrite > previous physictools-1.0.iso file instead of appending it.
Of course! That is why sudev asked you to use "cat physictools-1.0.iso?? > physictools-1.0.iso" which does the same as you did. The "??" is a wild card like "*" and is expanded by shell, so that the command is actually equivalent to "cat physictools-1.0.isoaa physictools-1.0.isoab physictools-1.0.isoac > physictools-1.0.iso". Since you running the command only once, '>' is the right one to use. In fact using '>>' might not work as expected, if there is a risk of a file named physictools-1.0.iso already being in the same directory. - Sandip -- Sandip Bhattacharya sandip (at) puroga.com Puroga Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Work: http://www.puroga.com Home: http://www.sandipb.net GPG: 51A4 6C57 4BC6 8C82 6A65 AE78 B1A1 2280 A129 0FF3 _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
