A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1861 ====================================================================== Reported By: stephane Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2024)/Issue8 Issue ID: 1861 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Error Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: Interpretation Required Name: Stephane Chazelas Organization: User Reference: Section: xargs utility Page Number: 3601 Line Number: 123207-123214 Interp Status: Proposed Final Accepted Text: https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1861#c6918 ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2024-10-11 12:32 UTC Last Modified: 2024-10-18 07:02 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: xargs -L broken by https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=243 resolution ====================================================================== Relationships ID Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- related to 0000243 Add -print0 to "find" ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0006923) stephane (reporter) - 2024-10-18 07:02 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1861#c6923 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, maybe that would warrant a separate bug, but what happens when the arg size limit is reached within the -L n lines (without -0) is not very clear. The -s option description only /suggests/ that lines should not be broken apart, as in with -s1000 -L2, if the args from 2 lines don't fit in the 1000 byte limit, pass the args from 1 line instead. GNU xargs seems to just return an error instead in that case. Actually, in that regard, for GNU xargs, contrary to what I suggested and has now been included in the proposed resolution, xargs -0 -L "$number" is not equivalent to xargs -0 -n "$number" because with the former if $number arguments don't fit in the -s limit, an error is returned, while in the latter, fewer arguments are used if possible instead. I cannot test other implementations at the moment to check whether that's a widespread behaviour. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2024-10-11 12:32 stephane New Issue 2024-10-11 12:32 stephane Name => Stephane Chazelas 2024-10-11 12:32 stephane Section => xargs utility 2024-10-11 12:32 stephane Page Number => 3601 2024-10-11 12:32 stephane Line Number => 123207-123214 2024-10-11 16:28 stephane Note Added: 0006913 2024-10-12 05:57 stephane Note Added: 0006914 2024-10-14 16:13 geoffclare Note Added: 0006916 2024-10-15 05:09 stephane Note Added: 0006917 2024-10-15 05:23 stephane Note Edited: 0006917 2024-10-17 09:08 geoffclare Note Added: 0006918 2024-10-17 09:12 geoffclare Relationship added related to 0000243 2024-10-17 15:12 geoffclare Note Edited: 0006918 2024-10-17 15:12 geoffclare Interp Status => Pending 2024-10-17 15:12 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1861#c6918 2024-10-17 15:12 geoffclare Status New => Interpretation Required 2024-10-17 15:12 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2024-10-17 15:13 geoffclare Tag Attached: tc1-2024 2024-10-17 16:25 agadmin Interp Status Pending => Proposed 2024-10-17 16:25 agadmin Note Added: 0006921 2024-10-18 06:34 stephane Note Added: 0006922 2024-10-18 07:02 stephane Note Added: 0006923 ======================================================================
