2015-06-30 13:05:38 -0400, Assaf Gordon:
[...]
> One more thing: instead of 'du -s *', perhaps 'du -d1' would
> work better (depending on your needs), as it will print sizes
> used only by directories.
Yes, and it will also include hidden files/dirs and won't have
problems with filenames starting
2015-06-30 12:51:02 +0200, Erik Auerswald:
[...]
> > But more a more obvious problem is 'du -shc' seems to be coming up with
> > the wrong number -- i.e. 1.5+3.6 = 5.1, not 5.0.
>
> That are probably rounding errors avoided by du, that hsort cannot avoid
> anymore.
[...]
Also, du -c gives you the
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> same result as before:
>
> OK, let's give up on this approach and try something more direct. I
> installed the attached patch; does it work on OS X?
Perfect.
I made latest coreutils use latest from gnulib, and now it
Hello,
On 06/30/2015 03:28 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
I admit the ability to show a summary line might not bethe first
thing you'd think a pure-sorting utility might do, but it would be
awfully handy if sort had a 'Numeric sum' option ("-N" -- preferred
'-s', but it's already taken) to go with the
Jim Meyering wrote:
same result as before:
OK, let's give up on this approach and try something more direct. I installed
the attached patch; does it work on OS X?
>From b1a1450d454698a765a625804fe336305209c696 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Eggert
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:32:07 -07
Steffen Zahn wrote:
it should be easy to repair
Really? Without significantly affecting performance in the usual case? Let's
see a patch.
On 6/30/2015 3:51 AM, Erik Auerswald wrote:
Ishtar:/tmp/dutest> du -shc * |sort -h|tail
1.5Msperl,v
3.6Mtotal
5.0Mtotal
Ishtar:/tmp/dutest> du -sh * |hsort -s|tail
1.5Msperl,v
3.6Mtotal
-
5.1MTOTAL
But more a more obvious problem is 'du -shc' seems to be co
Hello,
the bug was observed on Linux this time. Unfortunately I was hit with the
bug when backing up several large photo directories with hard-links to one
target directory on an external drive. So it was not obvious for me at
first, that something was going wrong.
>From my point of view (without
Pádraig, Stephane - thanks a lot for your help and quick response!
Tomek
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 02:35:17AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> On 6/30/2015 12:46 AM, Erik Auerswald wrote:
> >
> >>>du -sh *|sort -h|tail
> >Why not use 'du -shc * | sort -h | tail -n11'?
> >The total produced by du will sort after all the individual parts.
> Good idea -- didn't know abou
On 6/30/2015 12:46 AM, Erik Auerswald wrote:
du -sh *|sort -h|tail
Why not use 'du -shc * | sort -h | tail -n11'?
The total produced by du will sort after all the individual parts.
Good idea -- didn't know about '-c', but two things, 1 troubling,
the other a confusion. If you have a dir na
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:28:09AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> I admit the ability to show a summary line might not bethe first
> thing you'd think a pure-sorting utility might do, but it would be
> awfully handy if sort had a 'Numeric sum' option ("-N" -- preferred
> '-s', but it's already ta
I admit the ability to show a summary line might not bethe first
thing you'd think a pure-sorting utility might do, but it would be
awfully handy if sort had a 'Numeric sum' option ("-N" -- preferred
'-s', but it's already taken) to go with the -h sorting:
ala:
> du -sh *|sort -h|tail
6.0M
I think you'll find this was reported 3 years ago..
"bug#10471: Severe or critical - deletes existing files and leaves
nothing. (cp)"
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2015-04/msg1.html
Unfortunately it was closed it out w/the reason that it was a
"cygwin/windows-only"
14 matches
Mail list logo
