Hi, Some links from things I jotted down from last week:
ls -d ----- http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/ls.html says: "If no operands are specified, ls shall write the contents of the current directory." and then: "-d [...] Do not treat directories differently than other types of files. [...]" So it makes sense that 'ls -d .' would output '.', from the description of -d above. It also makes sense that 'ls' can be implemented as being equivalent to 'ls .' from the 'no operands' description above. Does this mean that 'ls -d' _must_ output '.', or is it free to be equivalent to 'ls -d *'? Event Notify Test Runner ----------------------- Probably mentioned before. entr (http://entrproject.org/) reads filenames from standard input, then watches those files for changes and runs a specified command each time a change is seen. Example: ls *.pdf | entr pkill -HUP mupdf ...to tell mupdf to reload the PDF file it is displaying, each time one of the PDFs in the current directory is regenerated. polkit ------ polkit (https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/polkit/) allows unprivileged processes to ask for privileged processes to carry out specific actions, and uses PAM to decide whether to allow this. It's what allows the 'Unlock' button seen in many config applications (e.g. GNOME Settings) to work. Star Wars in ASCII art ---------------------- telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl Mistyping --------- The 'sl' command: https://github.com/mtoyoda/sl although I see a helpful suggestion instead thanks to PackageKit-command-not-found: $ sl bash: sl: command not found... Similar command is: 'ls' $ Tim. */ -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2018-04-03 20:00 Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ New thread: mailto:dorset@mailman.lug.org.uk / CHECK IF YOU'RE REPLYING Reporting bugs well: http://goo.gl/4Xue / TO THE LIST OR THE AUTHOR
