On Wednesday 02 February 2011 22:28, Ralf Friedl wrote:
> Bob Dunlop wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 02 at 03:42, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> e.g. What does "rm -f /tmp/*" do if there are 12,000,000
> files in the /tmp directory? (Hint: nothing good!)
> Whereas "find /tmp -mindepth 1 -m
Bob Dunlop wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02 at 03:42, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
e.g. What does "rm -f /tmp/*" do if there are 12,000,000
files in the /tmp directory? (Hint: nothing good!)
Whereas "find /tmp -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 ! -type d -print0 \
| xargs -r0 rm -f" will succeed. More
c
>> Whereas "find /tmp -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 ! -type d -print0 \
>> | xargs -r0 rm -f" will succeed. More
>> complicated, to be sure, but more robust.
>Jim - I'm quite interested in this issue - a customer has just forced
us
>to up the spec on our data logger so it may have to dele
yup to all of the above - the null-terminated version is preferable.
Except.
xargs won't play with busybox's tar.
busybox tar can't append - so you can't create an empty archive and
append to it with tar - coz it ain't got no append capability.
And you can't use tar --create, because if xargs
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 02 at 03:42, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
...
> > > e.g. What does "rm -f /tmp/*" do if there are 12,000,000
> > > files in the /tmp directory? (Hint: nothing good!)
> > > Whereas "find /tmp -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 ! -type d -print0 \
> > > | xargs -r0 rm -f" will succeed
>
> In article ,
> jcat...@ciena.com (Cathey, Jim) wrote:
>
> > *From:* "Cathey, Jim"
> > *To:*
> > *CC:* jer...@dexdyne.com
> > *Date:* Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:31:38 -0800
> >
> > >I've worked out that while the code uses full paths to move the
> > files
> > >about, it uses relative paths in the zip
In article ,
jcat...@ciena.com (Cathey, Jim) wrote:
> *From:* "Cathey, Jim"
> *To:*
> *CC:* jer...@dexdyne.com
> *Date:* Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:31:38 -0800
>
> >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 t
Thanks Denys, that will fix tar..
if I have other situations I can use xargs.
TVM
D
In article <201101300653.49945.vda.li...@googlemail.com>,
vda.li...@googlemail.com (Denys Vlasenko) wrote:
> *From:* Denys Vlasenko
> *To:* busybox@busybox.net, from_busybox_maill...@dexdyne.com
> *CC:* jer
In article <4d432ce0.9050...@gmx.de>, ra...@gmx.de (Harald Becker) wrote:
> *From:* Harald Becker
> *To:* from_busybox_maill...@dexdyne.com
> *CC:* busybox@busybox.net, jer...@dexdyne.com
> *Date:* Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:53:52 +0100
>
> Hallo David!
>
> > I think I can tame this by suitable use o
On Friday 28 January 2011 19:26, David Collier wrote:
> 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 eac
Hallo Walter!
> If i remember correctly that limit is fallen in later linux kernels.
As correctly pointed out by someone else, there are (were) two limits.
The so called kernel limit, which is correctly a limit based of the
architectures stack/environment considerations. And the limit enforced
by
Am 28.01.2011 21:53, schrieb Harald Becker:
> 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 som
>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 |
17 matches
Mail list logo
