Just wanted to thank everyone for their help with my little problem.  It
worked great.

------------------------------------------------------
Another message from Jer Wiebe

Find me at...
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 4945359
-----Original Message-----
From: Cort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Linux Newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: Trapping Error messages...


>A brief lesson on redirecting output.
>
>        make depend 2> logfile.txt
>
>This will redirect standard error to the file "logfile.txt".
>
>        make depend > logfile.txt
>
>This will redirect standard output to the file "logfile.txt".
>
>        make depend > logfile.txt 2>&1
>
>This will redirect both standard error and standard output to the file
>"logfile.txt". Note that in this case, the "> logfile.txt" _must_ come
before
>the "2>&1".
>
>Most programs send their error messages to standard error, but occasionally
an
>application may be programmed to send it's error messages to standard
output
>instead. Some non-error messages may also be useful in debugging an error
as
>well. As such, it is advisable to trap both the standard error as well as
the
>standard output.
>
>On 02-Dec-98 Jeremy Wiebe wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am trying to compile the diald program.  I have downloaded it, but when
I
>> do a "make depend" as the README suggests, make complains about multiple
>> declerations.  I know there is a way to trap these messages but I can't
>> remember how and I can't find it anywhere for the life of me.  I seem to
>> remember something like "make depend 2>&1 logfile.txt"
>>
>> Not sure if someone has had this same problem, but the essence of the
>> warnings are that there are symbols that are being defined in more than
one
>> header file.  I was going to give the output, but alas, I need the answer
to
>> the first part before I can ask the second I guess.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Another message from Jer Wiebe
>>
>> Find me at...
>> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ICQ: 4945359
>
>Cort
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Reply via email to