>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:34:20 -0500,
>> Henry Olyer said:
H> I never learned a shell language. I suppose no one is as dumb as
H> someone who choose's not to learn, so, what's the right one. csh?
Not for scripting:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/
I work in an en
--As of February 10, 2012 4:24:58 PM +, Matthew Seaman is alleged to
have said:
On 10/02/2012 16:04, Matthew Story wrote:
find . -type f -depth 1 -print0 | xargs -n99 -0 -s8192 -c5 rm --
or some such, depending on your needs, I believe in most situations this
particular invocation will al
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:05:14 +1100
andrew clarke wrote:
> On Fri 2012-02-10 16:12:06 UTC+, Matthew Seaman
> (m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk) wrote:
>
> > > In addition, I don't believe it solves the OP's initial problem
> > > of the argument list being too long! You'd probably need to use
>
On 11/02/2012 15:33, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
> ls -1 | xargs rm
>>
but be aware that that wont work for filenames with spaces.
>>
>> True. Can't do that using ls to generate the list of filenames as
>> there is no option to generate a null-separated list a
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> >>> ls -1 | xargs rm
>
> >> but be aware that that wont work for filenames with spaces.
>
> True. Can't do that using ls to generate the list of filenames as
> there is no option to generate a null-separated list amongst ls's
> multitudinous collection.
It can, however,
Jerry McAllister wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:34:20AM -0500, Henry Olyer wrote:
> > I use bash 4.
>
> OK. So??
If you had read the thread before posting, you would have known
that someone asked which shell Henry was using (and he answered).
___
On Fri 2012-02-10 16:12:06 UTC+, Matthew Seaman
(m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk) wrote:
> > In addition, I don't believe it solves the OP's initial problem of the
> > argument list being too long! You'd probably need to use the xargs -n
> > switch here.
>
> Go and read the xargs(1) man pag
> "Matthew" == Matthew Seaman writes:
Matthew>find . -type f -depth 1 -exec rm -f '{}' ';'
Matthew> but let's not leave people in any doubt that this is not the
Matthew> best option.
However...
find . -type f -depth 1 -exec rm -f {} +
Might very well be a great option. Well, not fo
Здравствуйте, Da.
Вы писали 10 февраля 2012 г., 17:51:59:
DR> On 02/11/12 01:34, Henry Olyer wrote:
>> So what do I change if I want to increase the shell's file limit?
DR> I don't think you can. It's not a shell limit. It's a limit to the
DR> number of arguments the command itself will take. As
On 10/02/2012 16:04, Matthew Story wrote:
> find . -type f -depth 1 -print0 | xargs -n99 -0 -s8192 -c5 rm --
>
> or some such, depending on your needs, I believe in most situations this
> particular invocation will also out-perform find ... -delete.
Why would you believe that? find ... -delete ca
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:34:20AM -0500, Henry Olyer wrote:
> So what do I change if I want to increase the shell's file limit?
You don't want to diddle the shell.
Use the correct UNIX utilities such as - for, xargs or find - in this
case as have been suggested by other responders. That is t
>>> ls -1 | xargs rm
>> but be aware that that wont work for filenames with spaces.
True. Can't do that using ls to generate the list of filenames as there
is no option to generate a null-separated list amongst ls's
multitudinous collection.
> In addition, I don't believe it solves the OP's in
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Story wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Da Rock <
> freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 02/11/12 01:34, Henry Olyer wrote:
>>
>>> So what do I change if I want to increase the shell's file limit?
>>>
>> I don't think you ca
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Da Rock <
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
> On 02/11/12 01:34, Henry Olyer wrote:
>
>> So what do I change if I want to increase the shell's file limit?
>>
> I don't think you can. It's not a shell limit. It's a limit to the number
> of argumen
On 02/11/12 01:34, Henry Olyer wrote:
So what do I change if I want to increase the shell's file limit?
I don't think you can. It's not a shell limit. It's a limit to the
number of arguments the command itself will take. As said, the shell
expands '*' to a list of files as the argument, and rm
So what do I change if I want to increase the shell's file limit?
I use bash 4.
And by the way, for me, part of the normal installation of a new FBSD box
is to make certain changes. For example, for "uniq -c" I use "%06" instead
of "%d" because this way I can sort the output. Things like that.
On Tue 2012-02-07 23:17:16 UTC+, RW (rwmailli...@googlemail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:14:56 +
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
> > ls -1 | xargs rm
>
> but be aware that that wont work for filenames with spaces.
In addition, I don't believe it solves the OP's initial problem of the
David Brodbeck writes:
> > What helps me sometimes is wrapping it up:
> >
> > for i in *; do rm $i; done
>
> Won't that just expand the * and result in the same problem? It
> seems like you've just moved the problem from the rm statement to
> the for statement.
If the problem is
On 02/08/2012 12:02 PM, David Brodbeck wrote:
> 2012/2/7 Ingo Hofmann :
>> What helps me sometimes is wrapping it up:
>>
>> for i in *; do rm $i; done
>
> Won't that just expand the * and result in the same problem? It seems
> like you've just moved the problem from the rm statement to the for
>
2012/2/7 Ingo Hofmann :
> What helps me sometimes is wrapping it up:
>
> for i in *; do rm $i; done
Won't that just expand the * and result in the same problem? It seems
like you've just moved the problem from the rm statement to the for
statement.
___
On 2/7/12, Коньков Евгений wrote:
> # rm *
> /bin/rm: Argument list too long.
>
>
> in this directory about 25000 files,
> but actually there is only one argument to rm it is '*' sign.
>
> Why rm get list of all files in directore instead of deleting one by one?
If you're removing everything, can
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:14:56 +
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> ls -1 | xargs rm
but be aware that that wont work for filenames with spaces.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubsc
> "Matthew" == Matthew Seaman writes:
Matthew> As you have discovered, it is very easy to overload the argument list.
Matthew> There are many ways around this, but one of the best ones is to use
Matthew> xargs(1). eg:
Matthew>% ls -1 | xargs rm
No need for the -1 there. Whenever ls
Êîíüêîâ Åâãåíèé wrote:
# rm *
/bin/rm: Argument list too long.
in this directory about 25000 files,
but actually there is only one argument to rm it is '*' sign.
Why rm get list of all files in directore instead of deleting one by one?
Short answer: this is not Windows.
Long answer: shell d
What helps me sometimes is wrapping it up:
for i in *; do rm $i; done
Best,
Ingo
P.S.:
Helps also with whitespaces in the filename where 'rm *' fails too.
On 07.02.2012, at 14:10 , Rares Aioanei wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 11:59 PM, Коньков Евгений wrote:
>> # rm *
>> /bin/rm: Argument list too lon
2012/2/7 Коньков Евгений
> # rm *
> /bin/rm: Argument list too long.
>
>
> in this directory about 25000 files,
> but actually there is only one argument to rm it is '*' sign.
>
> Why rm get list of all files in directore instead of deleting one by one?
>
> ___
Thank you all for answers =)
--
С уважением,
Коньков mailto:kes-...@yandex.ru
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd
On 07/02/2012 21:59, Коньков Евгений wrote:
> # rm *
> /bin/rm: Argument list too long.
>
>
> in this directory about 25000 files,
> but actually there is only one argument to rm it is '*' sign.
>
> Why rm get list of all files in directore instead of deleting one by one?
It's the shell that ex
On 02/07/2012 11:59 PM, Коньков Евгений wrote:
# rm *
/bin/rm: Argument list too long.
in this directory about 25000 files,
but actually there is only one argument to rm it is '*' sign.
Why rm get list of all files in directore instead of deleting one by one?
_
> "Коньков" == Коньков Евгений writes:
Коньков> # rm *
Коньков> /bin/rm: Argument list too long.
Коньков> in this directory about 25000 files,
Коньков> but actually there is only one argument to rm it is '*' sign.
Коньков> Why rm get list of all files in directore instead of deleting
Коньк
# rm *
/bin/rm: Argument list too long.
in this directory about 25000 files,
but actually there is only one argument to rm it is '*' sign.
Why rm get list of all files in directore instead of deleting one by one?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mail
31 matches
Mail list logo
