Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
Thiago Damas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It can be: > cd /usr/ports > rm -rf */*/work That could overflow your argument verctor if there's a large number of work directories. It's better to use "echo */*/work | xargs rm -rf" if you don't know the size of the pattern expansion in advance, especially in shell scripts. echo is a shell- builtin, so the argument vector limit doesn't apply. xargs is your friend. :-) Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "Clear perl code is better than unclear awk code; but NOTHING comes close to unclear perl code" (taken from comp.lang.awk FAQ) ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
It can be: cd /usr/ports rm -rf */*/work []s On 8/26/06, Rick C. Petty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: > > My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the > 'work' directories ! > > Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe > them off. I find that the following command works just fine for me: find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete =) -- Rick C. Petty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
- Original Message - From: "Bill Vermillion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: Re: A handy utility (at least for me) > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > saw "Error reading FAT table? Try SKINNY table?" And promptly > said: > > > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:18:58 +0200 (CEST) > > From: Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: A handy utility (at least for me) > > > Rick C. Petty wrote: > > > > Mario Lobo wrote: > > > > > My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 > > > > was just from the 'work' directories ! > > > You should type "make clean" more often. ;-) > > And to ensure that 'make clean' in the /usr/ports directory runs > much faster, be sure to add NOCLEANDEPENDS=YES in your > /etc/make.conf. > > After you run that on the entire tree besure to comment it out so > that when you run make clean inside a port you clean all the > dependancies too. You could always just do make NOCLEANDEPENDS=yes clean from /usr/ports and then you wouldn't need to worry about setting it in your /etc/make.conf. > > Bill > > -- > Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com > Naram Qashat ___ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 12:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] saw "Error reading FAT table? Try SKINNY table?" And promptly said: > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:18:58 +0200 (CEST) > From: Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: A handy utility (at least for me) > Rick C. Petty wrote: > > Mario Lobo wrote: > > > My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 > > > was just from the 'work' directories ! > You should type "make clean" more often. ;-) And to ensure that 'make clean' in the /usr/ports directory runs much faster, be sure to add NOCLEANDEPENDS=YES in your /etc/make.conf. After you run that on the entire tree besure to comment it out so that when you run make clean inside a port you clean all the dependancies too. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
Richard Coleman wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > The following is probably the most efficient solution. > > It doesn't run into all subdirectories (and works with > > an arbitrary numebr of subdirectories). > > > > cd /usr/ports; echo */*/work | xargs rm -rf > > So does this: > > find /usr/ports -mindepth 3 -maxdepth 3 -name work -print -delete -prune > > I would be surprised if the globbing in most shells was more > efficient than find. Both are mainly disk-bound, so the runtime should be about the same, I guess. (I'm too lazy to do any actual bench- marks with find and various shells.) > Although as mentioned before, nothing beats putting all the work > directories in a single location, and using a single rm command. Yes, there is something that beats it: If you put the work directories on their own filesystem, you can simply umount and newfs it, which is probably faster than rm -rf. If you use a memory filesystem (md device), it's even sufficient to just umount it. I think nothing beats that in terms of speed. ;-) Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. $ dd if=/dev/urandom of=test.pl count=1 $ file test.pl test.pl: perl script text executable ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
Oliver Fromme wrote: The following is probably the most efficient solution. It doesn't run into all subdirectories (and works with an arbitrary numebr of subdirectories). cd /usr/ports; echo */*/work | xargs rm -rf Best regards Oliver So does this: find /usr/ports -mindepth 3 -maxdepth 3 -name work -print -delete -prune I would be surprised if the globbing in most shells was more efficient than find. Although as mentioned before, nothing beats putting all the work directories in a single location, and using a single rm command. Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:18:48PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote: > > If echo is a shell built in, then it works just fine, and the xargs > insures that you don't try passing to many arguments to rm. Ah! I was mistaken; I didn't think about builtins not requiring argument passing. > > Also I don't see how your example is any more efficient than find-- you're > > just making the shell do the work instead of find. > > Find will check *every file* in *every directory* to see if it's named > "work" or not. The shell version won't make that test on the first two > levels of directories; it just expands them. Forgot about those as well. I retract my previous suggestion, now in favor of: find /usr/ports -depth 3 -prune -o -type d -name work -prune -print -delete This will prevent from going into the files directories. This method doesn't have the extra process overhead. > And now you get into the question of what "efficient" means. Either > process is going to spend most of it's time waiting on the disk. With > the find, nothing else is happening while that's going on. With > multiple processes, there's a possibility that one can be working > while the other is waiting on the disk, so it might take more CPU time > while taking less wall clock time. Which is more efficient? [NB: This > is grossly oversimplified, but you get the general idea.] In general I would agree with you. But in this case, either the shell is doing a loop over readdir() and applying its glob internally or find is doing the loop over readdir() and applying its glob via regexec(3). In either case, the CPU time should be relatively similar. In the find case, a syscall is applied whereas the shell spits this to the xargs process thru a pipe, who has to malloc/memcpy the lines and start at least one other process, which then applies the syscall. To me, this sounds like a lot more CPU time. I'm not convinced find would take any longer wallclock time. It would be interesting to see some stats on both methods, with and without the benefit of FreeBSD's filesystem caching mechanisms. Regardless, the find command is certainly not faster to type for some people, and really what's important is how much operator time is spent. One nice thing about unix is that there's more than one way to skin a cat(1), pardon the pun. So use what you feel more comfortable using! Three cheers for free unix, -- Rick C. Petty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick C. Petty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:18:58PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Rick C. Petty wrote: > > > I find that the following command works just fine for me: > > > find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete > > The following is probably the most efficient solution. > > It doesn't run into all subdirectories (and works with > > an arbitrary numebr of subdirectories). > > cd /usr/ports; echo */*/work | xargs rm -rf > You might as well just do: > rm -rf /usr/ports/*/*/work > because using xargs doesn't gain you anything in this case. How does your > example work with an arbitrary number of subdirectories? If echo is a shell built in, then it works just fine, and the xargs insures that you don't try passing to many arguments to rm. > Your example does't work if the number of work directories exceeds the > maximum number of arguments That limit is in the kernel exec. If echo is a shell built in, then the kernel exec doesn't gets involved until after xargs has had a chance to chop the list of arguments up. If you used "rm" instead of echo, that isn't the case. > Also I don't see how your example is any more efficient than find-- you're > just making the shell do the work instead of find. Find will check *every file* in *every directory* to see if it's named "work" or not. The shell version won't make that test on the first two levels of directories; it just expands them. > In either case, it's > just a sequence of opendir()/readdir(). In fact your example would start > secondary processes to do the directory removal; find has this built in > and thus doesn't have the overhead of process forking. And now you get into the question of what "efficient" means. Either process is going to spend most of it's time waiting on the disk. With the find, nothing else is happening while that's going on. With multiple processes, there's a possibility that one can be working while the other is waiting on the disk, so it might take more CPU time while taking less wall clock time. Which is more efficient? [NB: This is grossly oversimplified, but you get the general idea.] > Perhaps if on an > arbitrary directory tree, find may not be as efficient, but the only > directories deeper than depth of two (in my example) are work directories, > and they would be pruned. You forgot the files directories that some ports have. Your version will look through those for "work", the glob won't. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:18:58PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Rick C. Petty wrote: > > > > I find that the following command works just fine for me: > > > > find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete > > The following is probably the most efficient solution. > It doesn't run into all subdirectories (and works with > an arbitrary numebr of subdirectories). > > cd /usr/ports; echo */*/work | xargs rm -rf You might as well just do: rm -rf /usr/ports/*/*/work because using xargs doesn't gain you anything in this case. How does your example work with an arbitrary number of subdirectories? Your example does't work if the number of work directories exceeds the maximum number of arguments (4096 IIRC), which can happen amidst 16,000 ports. This bit me once so I use find now (granted this was before I was using portupgrade). Also I don't see how your example is any more efficient than find-- you're just making the shell do the work instead of find. In either case, it's just a sequence of opendir()/readdir(). In fact your example would start secondary processes to do the directory removal; find has this built in and thus doesn't have the overhead of process forking. Perhaps if on an arbitrary directory tree, find may not be as efficient, but the only directories deeper than depth of two (in my example) are work directories, and they would be pruned. -- Rick C. Petty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
Rick C. Petty wrote: > Mario Lobo wrote: > > My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from > > the > > 'work' directories ! You should type "make clean" more often. ;-) > > Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe > > them off. > > I find that the following command works just fine for me: > > find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete The following is probably the most efficient solution. It doesn't run into all subdirectories (and works with an arbitrary numebr of subdirectories). cd /usr/ports; echo */*/work | xargs rm -rf Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "I started using PostgreSQL around a month ago, and the feeling is similar to the switch from Linux to FreeBSD in '96 -- 'wow!'." -- Oddbjorn Steffensen ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dirk Engling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : Rick C. Petty wrote: : > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: : >> My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the : >> 'work' directories ! : >> : >> Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe : >> them off. : > : > I find that the following command works just fine for me: : > : > find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete : : And EVEN cooler is having a : : WRKDIRPREFIX= /var/ports : : in your /etc/make.conf, that way an "rm -rf /var/ports/*" cleans without : unnecessary directory recursion. I just discovered this in my quest to see how hard it would be to get ports cross building as part of some other work I've been doing... Warner ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Rick C. Petty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: : > : > My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the : > 'work' directories ! : > : > Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe : > them off. : : I find that the following command works just fine for me: : : find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete cd /usr/ports ; rm -rf */*/work seems to run a little faster for me... So long as I don't have a huge number of work directories (fewer than thousands). Warner ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mario Lobo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > Hi; > > My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the > 'work' directories ! > > Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe > them off. Setting WORDIRPREFIX in /etc/make.conf will cause all the 'work' directories to be put in that directory. While cleaning them up wasn't my reason for doing that (I shared /usr/ports across several platforms), it sures makes cleaing up the work directories easy. Ditto for DISTDIR, if you want to clean up distfiles. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
albi: On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:12:52 +0400 Roman Kurakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rick C. Petty: On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the 'work' directories ! Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe them off. I find that the following command works just fine for me: find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete A bit rude, but also works cd /usr/ports && make clean guys... please use the official portsclean ! :) In most of cases, you not need it. Portupgrade will clean after itself ;-) rik included in the sysutils/portupgrade portsclean -h portsclean 2.0.1 (2006/06/13) usage: portsclean [-hCDDiLnPPQQq] -h, --help Show this message -C, --workcleanClean up working directories --- ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 01:13:19AM +0200, albi wrote: > > > > I find that the following command works just fine for me: > > > > > > find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete > > > > > A bit rude, but also works > > > > cd /usr/ports && make clean > > guys... please use the official portsclean ! :) > > included in the sysutils/portupgrade I was giving an option that works across every system, I didn't mean to encourage a litany of responses. =) I wouldn't call it "official" unless it's in the base system. Why isn't portupgrade in the base system? Oh right, because it uses ruby. Please shoot me first before throwing ruby in the base distro. :-P -- Rick C. Petty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
* albi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-27 01:13 +0200]: > guys... please use the official portsclean ! :) > > included in the sysutils/portupgrade > > portsclean -h > portsclean 2.0.1 (2006/06/13) > > usage: portsclean [-hCDDiLnPPQQq] > > -h, --help Show this message > -C, --workcleanClean up working directories I used that, but it gave WRKDIRPREFIX (or some directory below it) a group ownership and permissions (group writable) I did not like. I just switched back to rm, so I don't know if you can change this. Nicolas -- http://www.rachinsky.de/nicolas ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:12:52 +0400 Roman Kurakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rick C. Petty: > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: > > > >> My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was > >> just from the 'work' directories ! > >> > >> Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility > >> to wipe them off. > >> > > > > I find that the following command works just fine for me: > > > > find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete > > > A bit rude, but also works > > cd /usr/ports && make clean guys... please use the official portsclean ! :) included in the sysutils/portupgrade portsclean -h portsclean 2.0.1 (2006/06/13) usage: portsclean [-hCDDiLnPPQQq] -h, --help Show this message -C, --workcleanClean up working directories --- -- grtjs, albi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
> I find that the following command works just fine for me: > > > find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete > > And EVEN cooler is having a > > WRKDIRPREFIX= /var/ports > > in your /etc/make.conf, that way an "rm -rf /var/ports/*" cleans without > unnecessary directory recursion. Nothing like being a part of a list o people with true knowledge of OS tools!. I at least take comfort in the fact that I exercised my tiny programing skills, and that I learned more options from these guys. big thanks. -- Mario Lobo http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br 99% rwindows FREE (FBSD not for Pro-Audio YET!!!) ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roman Kurakin wrote: > A bit rude, but also works > > cd /usr/ports && make clean This one takes ages, every port is being cleaned which in turn cleans every dependency, so low level ports will be "make clean"ed thousand times. Better would be for port in /usr/ports/*/*/; do cd $port; make NOCLEANDEPENDS=YES clean; done Regards erdgeist -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) iD8DBQFE8NU7ImmQdUyYEgkRAqHTAJ9Q4XFOgg144pkIZ6mPvE5OCNx0NgCgkafL 4aun8IXwJaJSRx1eRVO1dMY= =f5Mj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
Rick C. Petty: On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the 'work' directories ! Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe them off. I find that the following command works just fine for me: find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete A bit rude, but also works cd /usr/ports && make clean rik =) -- Rick C. Petty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
On Saturday 26 August 2006 20:01, you wrote: > Actually, it is a big deal for some people. Why the GPL? > You are posting to a FreeBSD list. You're right, but I build it in kdevelop and it put it there so I felt I should leave it there. -- Mario Lobo http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br 99% rwindows FREE (FBSD not for Pro-Audio YET!!!) ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rick C. Petty wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: >> My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the >> 'work' directories ! >> >> Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe >> them off. > > I find that the following command works just fine for me: > > find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete And EVEN cooler is having a WRKDIRPREFIX= /var/ports in your /etc/make.conf, that way an "rm -rf /var/ports/*" cleans without unnecessary directory recursion. Regards erdgeist -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin) iD4DBQFE8NM1ImmQdUyYEgkRAh4OAJ4m2S/EckiXj3N95NDba5TjW+z54gCY8CNp 5xvH4mLR9Kttl9KdB6NGBA== =F5cq -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
Hello Mario, Sunday, August 27, 2006, 12:19:06 AM, you wrote: > Hi; > My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the > 'work' directories ! > Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe > them off. try portsclean(1) which IIRC belongs to sysutils/portupgrade. -- Best regards, Danielmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: > > If you find it useful, pass it on. Its not a big deal but thanks for keeping > the credits on it. Actually, it is a big deal for some people. Why the GPL? You are posting to a FreeBSD list. -- Steve ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: A handy utility (at least for me)
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:19:06PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: > > My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the > 'work' directories ! > > Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe > them off. I find that the following command works just fine for me: find /usr/ports -type d -name work -prune -print -delete =) -- Rick C. Petty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
A handy utility (at least for me)
Hi;
My /usr/ports directory was occuping 24 gigs, of which 20 was just from the
'work' directories !
Removing them one by one was a pain so I wrote this little utility to wipe
them off.
If you find it useful, pass it on. Its not a big deal but thanks for keeping
the credits on it.
Last but not least:
"if any 'member' of your hard disk is caught and killed, the programer will
deny any knowledge of your actions. This program will NOT self-destruct in 5
seconds."
CODE SNIP ---
/***
* Copyright (C) 2006 by Mario Lobo
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the
* Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
* 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
*
* To compile: gcc -O2 -o dwork dwork.c
*
***/
#include
#include
#include
char linha[2048],comd[2048];
void clean_it(char *arg);
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int k = 1;
char *maindir = "/bin/ls -R /usr/ports/", *pad = " | grep /work:" ;
char arq1[100];
printf("\n\n");
printf("DWORK - /usr/ports/nnn/nnn/'work' directory cleaner. (Mario
Lobo -
2006)\n\n");
printf("ex.: dwork (no arguments) -> Deletes 'work' directories
from /usr/ports\n");
printf(" dwork multimedia -> Deletes 'work' directories
from /usr/ports/multimedia\n");
printf(" dwork multimedia audio-> Deletes 'work' directories
from /usr/ports/multimedia AND /usr/ports/audio\n");
printf("\n\n");
printf("** Working. Please wait");
if (argc > 1) {
while(k < argc) {
strcpy(comd,maindir);
strcat(comd,argv[k]);
strcat(comd,pad);
strcpy(arq1,"/usr/ports/");
strcat(arq1,argv[k]);
clean_it(arq1);
k++;
}
} else {
strcpy(comd,maindir);
strcat(comd,pad);
clean_it("/usr/ports");
}
printf("\n\n** DONE.\n\n");
}
void clean_it(char *arg) {
char *tmp;
int c = 0;
FILE *fp;
fp = popen(comd,"r");
printf("\n");
while(!feof(fp)) {
memset(linha,0,1024);
fgets(linha,1024,fp);
if (strlen(linha) < 15) continue;
c = 1;
tmp = strchr(linha,'\n');
*tmp = '\0';
tmp = strchr(linha,':');
*tmp = '\0';
printf("\n++ Removing %s", linha);
strcpy(comd,"/bin/rm -rf ");
strcat(comd,linha);
system(comd);
}
pclose(fp);
if (!c) printf("\n-- NO 'work' directories in %s.",arg);
}
CODE ENDS --
Best wishes,
--
Mario Lobo
http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br
99% rwindows FREE (FBSD not for Pro-Audio YET!!!)
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
