On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Lapo Luchini wrote: > > > Dr. Volker Zell wrote: > > > (cd ${instdir} && \ > > > find ${instdir} -name "*.exe" -o -name "*.dll" | xargs cygcheck | \ > > > sed -e '/\.exe/d' -e 's,\\,/,g' | sort -bu | xargs -n1 cygpath -u \ > > > - | xargs cygcheck -f | sed 's%^% %' ; \ > > > + | xargs cygcheck -f | sed 's%^% %' | uniq ; \ > > > true ) > > > } > > > > Wouldn't the last "uniq" better be a "sort -u" instead? > > Files are sorted after the first "sed", that's true: but they get sorted > > by file name, while in the following passage we extract package name > > which contains those files: who assures us that the package list is > > already sorted? > > I guess this is true in "most of the cases" (where the package name is > > the same as the file name), or is there an "implied" sort that I didn't > > catch? > > > > Lapo > > Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Technically, "cygcheck -f" *will* > sort the packages for all files specified on the command line, but just in > case xargs decides to split the file list across multiple command lines, a > "sort -u" would definitely be safer. > Igor
Ok, I've committed this with a "sort -u" instead of "uniq". Thanks, Volker. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw