>I've worked out that while the code uses full paths to move the files
>about, it uses relative paths in the zip command.
>
>so that's 2000 * 50 in the absolute worst case.
>
>It would be nice to know what length of command might break busybox,
but
>failing that I'll stick an xargs in the command l
In article ,
jcat...@ciena.com (Cathey, Jim) wrote:
> *From:* "Cathey, Jim"
> *To:* ,
> *CC:*
> *Date:* Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:41:48 -0800
>
> >I have some rubbish code I've inherited and don't have time to
> rewrite,
> >which can spit out
> >
> > tar file1 file2 file3
> >
> >where eac
Hallo David!
> I think I can tame this by suitable use of relative paths, but I'd still
> be interested to know
There is such a limit. Normal Unix shell has limits of 4 to16k ... and I
think busybox ash has limited this even further (got something like 1k
in my brain ... but don't know if this in
In article ,
jcat...@ciena.com (Cathey, Jim) wrote:
> *From:* "Cathey, Jim"
> *To:* ,
> *CC:*
> *Date:* Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:41:48 -0800
>
> >I have some rubbish code I've inherited and don't have time to
> rewrite,
> >which can spit out
> >
> > tar file1 file2 file3
> >
> >where eac
>I have some rubbish code I've inherited and don't have time to rewrite,
>which can spit out
>
> tar file1 file2 file3
>
>where each of the file names is up to 100 chars, and there could be up
to
>2000 of them in theory.
This is what xargs is for. (Hint: use tar -r)
find glop |
Is there any explicit limit on the size of command like busybox can swing
round it's head?
I have some rubbish code I've inherited and don't have time to rewrite,
which can spit out
tar file1 file2 file3
where each of the file names is up to 100 chars, and there could be up to
2000 of
