On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:14:26PM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> 2017-07-17 14:03 GMT+03:00 Klemens Nanni :
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:57:02AM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> >> > + for _liba in /usr/lib/lib{c,crypto}; do
> >> > + _libas="$_libas $(ls $_liba.so.+([0-9.]).a | sor
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:14:26PM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> 2017-07-17 14:03 GMT+03:00 Klemens Nanni :
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:57:02AM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> >> > + for _liba in /usr/lib/lib{c,crypto}; do
> >> > + _libas="$_libas $(ls $_liba.so.+([0-9.]).a | sor
2017-07-17 14:03 GMT+03:00 Klemens Nanni :
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:57:02AM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
>> > + for _liba in /usr/lib/lib{c,crypto}; do
>> > + _libas="$_libas $(ls $_liba.so.+([0-9.]).a | sort -V |
>> > tail -1)"
>> > done
>> > + _libas=${_libas#
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:57:02AM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> > + for _liba in /usr/lib/lib{c,crypto}; do
> > + _libas="$_libas $(ls $_liba.so.+([0-9.]).a | sort -V | tail
> > -1)"
> > done
> > + _libas=${_libas# }
> >
> > # Remount read-write, if /usr/l
2017-07-16 14:55 GMT+03:00 Klemens Nanni :
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:26:25AM +, Robert Peichaer wrote:
>> But I'd like to stay strict matching the filenames.
>>
>> + for _liba in /usr/lib/lib{c,crypto}; do
>> + _libas="$_libas $(ls $_liba.so.+([0-9.]).a | sort -V | tail
>> -
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:55:09AM +, Robert Peichaer wrote:
> To the contrary what my previous answer might indicate, I don't care
> that much either. If you want to explicitely remove the blank, go for
> it.
Most problems I ever encountered while writing shell code were related
to (nested) qu
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 01:55:02PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:26:25AM +, Robert Peichaer wrote:
> > But I'd like to stay strict matching the filenames.
> >
> > + for _liba in /usr/lib/lib{c,crypto}; do
> > + _libas="$_libas $(ls $_liba.so.+([0-9.]).a |
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 01:23:00PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:26:25AM +, Robert Peichaer wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 03:37:15AM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > Why looping over all existing archives, picking the latest version of
> > > the current archive,
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:26:25AM +, Robert Peichaer wrote:
> But I'd like to stay strict matching the filenames.
>
> + for _liba in /usr/lib/lib{c,crypto}; do
> + _libas="$_libas $(ls $_liba.so.+([0-9.]).a | sort -V | tail -1)"
> + done
>
> > + _libas=${_libas# }
Agree
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:26:25AM +, Robert Peichaer wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 03:37:15AM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > Why looping over all existing archives, picking the latest version of
> > the current archive, skipping it in case it's already in our list of
> > selected latest ve
> But I'd like to stay strict matching the filenames.
>
> + for _liba in /usr/lib/lib{c,crypto}; do
> + _libas="$_libas $(ls $_liba.so.+([0-9.]).a | sort -V | tail -1)"
> + done
Yes, this is indeed better.
So Klemens, can you write a patch that uses this and removes the then
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 03:37:15AM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Why looping over all existing archives, picking the latest version of
> the current archive, skipping it in case it's already in our list of
> selected latest versions or adding it otherwise?
>
> The current code runs ls|sort|tail ab
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 03:37:15AM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Why looping over all existing archives, picking the latest version of
> the current archive, skipping it in case it's already in our list of
> selected latest versions or adding it otherwise?
>
> The current code runs ls|sort|tail ab
13 matches
Mail list logo
