Hi,
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
#file [
[: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for
GNU/Linux 2.4.1, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux
2.4.1, stripped
in I can find things like:
[...]
-ot does not accept -l
%s: unary operator expected
%s:
Arnau Bria wrote:
Hi,
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
#file [
[: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for
GNU/Linux 2.4.1, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux
2.4.1, stripped
in I can find things like:
[...]
-ot does not accept -l
%s:
On 7/25/06, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
Perfectly normal. It is a program that implements bash style tests
for script environments that don't normally do them. For example:
if [ -f /etc/passwd ] ; then
echo /etc/passwd exists and is
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 11:00 schrieb ext Arnau Bria:
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
[...]
does any one know what could it be?¿
It's the [ from if [ condition ]; then ..., a shortcut for /usr/bin/test.
HTH...
Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:14:02 -0700
Richard Fish wrote:
On 7/25/06, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
Perfectly normal. It is a program that implements bash style tests
for script environments that don't normally do them. For example:
does any one know what could it be?¿
AFAIK it's a synonym to »test«.
Best regards
ce
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:36:55 +0200, Arnau Bria wrote:
I have a periodically rkhunter runnig in my system, but I was afraid I
got a corrupted source package...
Portage would refuse to install from a corrupted source package, because
it verifies the checksums of all files it uses.
--
Neil
Richard Fish wrote:
On 7/25/06, Arnau Bria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
Perfectly normal. It is a program that implements bash style tests
Not *bash* style tests. bash doesn't have much to do with this.
for script environments that don't
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 11:00 schrieb ext Arnau Bria:
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
[...]
does any one know what could it be?¿
It's the [ from if [ condition ]; then ..., a shortcut for /usr/bin/test.
Nope, not correct.
[09:39:58 [EMAIL
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:02:48 +0200
Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 11:00 schrieb ext Arnau Bria:
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
[...]
does any one know what could it be?¿
It's the [ from if [ condition ];
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 13:02 schrieb ext Alexander Skwar:
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 11:00 schrieb ext Arnau Bria:
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
[...]
does any one know what could it be?¿
It's the [ from if [ condition ]; then ..., a shortcut
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:00:38 +0200, Arnau Bria wrote:
I've seen a file named [ in my /usr/bin ...
[ is a synonym for the test command, see man test for details.
This file isn't normally used, because [ and test are builtins in Bash.
--
Neil Bothwick
Some day my ship will come in, but with
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:26:53 +, Hagen Soengen wrote:
I wonder where the differences are. I would've expected that test and
[ were hardlinks.
# /usr/bin/[
/usr/bin/[: missing ']'
# /usr/bin/test
no output
#
You see? They cant be the same, because the closing ] is
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 09:20, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:26:53 +, Hagen Soengen wrote:
I wonder where the differences are. I would've expected that test and
[ were hardlinks.
# /usr/bin/[
/usr/bin/[: missing ']'
# /usr/bin/test
no output
#
You
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:26:52 -0300, Mauro Faccenda wrote:
You see? They cant be the same, because the closing ] is needed
by /usr/bin[ and not by /usr/bin/test
It's quite common for a program to change its behaviour according to
the name used to run it. For example, zcat and gunzip
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 14:16 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:26:52 -0300, Mauro Faccenda wrote:
You see? They cant be the same, because the closing ] is needed
by /usr/bin[ and not by /usr/bin/test
It's quite common for a program to change its behaviour according
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 15:41, Alan McKinnon wrote:
The answer is simple:
'test' is a bash builtin. When a bash script executes 'test', it is
not /usr/bin/test that runs, but a function internal to bash.
/usr/bin/test/ is provided for environments that want to run bash
scripts that use
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 14:16 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:26:52 -0300, Mauro Faccenda wrote:
You see? They cant be the same, because the closing ] is needed
by /usr/bin[ and not by /usr/bin/test
It's quite common for a program to change
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:26:52 -0300, Mauro Faccenda wrote:
You see? They cant be the same, because the closing ] is needed
by /usr/bin[ and not by /usr/bin/test
It's quite common for a program to change its behaviour according to
the name used to run it. For
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 15:16, Neil Bothwick wrote:
I was disagreeing with the cant be the same comment. I know they are
different files, but the slightly different behaviour is insufficient
reason for that. Alexander asked why one was not a link to the other,
I'd like to know too, but this
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:41:56 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
The answer is simple:
Maye, but this isn't it.
'test' is a bash builtin. When a bash script executes 'test', it is
not /usr/bin/test that runs, but a function internal to bash.
test and [ are both Bash builtins, but there are also [
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 16:18 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
test and [ are not links to each other as they have different syntax
(the closing ]), so they cannot be the same command. If they were
linked, one of them would fail on execution with invalid syntax
errors
This is not 100% true. As
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 16:33, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Um, no. Read my post again. The command 'test' and the command '['
have *different* syntax so cannot possible be links to each other and
still have it work. The command does behave differently depending on
the name it is called with, but
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:33:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Um, no. Read my post again. The command 'test' and the command '[' have
*different* syntax so cannot possible be links to each other and still
have it work.
if [ $(basename $0) == [ ]
then
#parse for trailing ]
else
Alan McKinnon schrieb:
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 16:18 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
test and [ are not links to each other as they have different syntax
(the closing ]), so they cannot be the same command. If they were
linked, one of them would fail on execution with invalid syntax
errors
This
On 7/25/06, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 16:18 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
test and [ are not links to each other as they have different syntax
(the closing ]), so they cannot be the same command. If they were
linked, one of them would fail on execution with
26 matches
Mail list logo
