On 4/25/2012 6:29 AM, Ronald Fischer wrote: >Eliot Moss sent the following at Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:05 AM > >> Why do I get a different output in the following two invocations of >> xargs? I had expected that the relative order of the command line >> switches (-I, -L) would not matter: >> >> $ ls | xargs -I DIR -L 1 echo DIR >> DIR wontprint.txt >> DIR x.cmd >> DIR x.pl >> DIR x.sh >> $ ls | xargs -L 1 -I DIR echo DIR >> wontprint.txt >> x.cmd >> x.pl >> x.sh > >I agree that that is what happens, and that it does seem strange >and buggy. I note, though, that -I *implies* -L 1, so the -L 1 is >unnecessary. Perhaps the explicit mention of -L 1 "kills" the -I flag in >xarg's command line processing. My guess is that this behavior is passed >on from the upstream implementation and is not specific to cygwin, which >means that the appeal for a change would probably need to be lodged >elsewhere ...
From man xargs: BUGS The -L option is incompatible with the -I option, but perhaps should not be. - Barry Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple