On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:34:20 -0500,
Henry Olyer henry.ol...@gmail.com 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/
Jerry McAllister jerr...@msu.edu 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).
Matthew Seaman freebsd-questi...@infracaninophile.co.uk 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
On 11/02/2012 15:33, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Matthew Seaman freebsd-questi...@infracaninophile.co.uk 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
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
the
--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
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.
I
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
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 arguments the
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Story matthewst...@gmail.comwrote:
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
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 initial
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
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 calls
Matthew == Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk writes:
Matthewfind . -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
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 page
2012/2/7 Ingo Hofmann ingo.hofm...@dont-panic.org:
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 02/08/2012 12:02 PM, David Brodbeck wrote:
2012/2/7 Ingo Hofmann ingo.hofm...@dont-panic.org:
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
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 the
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
Коньков == Коньков Евгений kes-...@yandex.ru 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
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?
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 expands
2012/2/7 Коньков Евгений kes-...@yandex.ru
# 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?
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 long.
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
Matthew == Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk 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
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
On 2/7/12, Коньков Евгений kes-...@yandex.ru 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
28 matches
Mail list logo
