I believe this was sent to me by mistake, this is a thread of this list...
Rob Landley escreveu:
On Monday 22 December 2008 10:36:23 Alain M. wrote:
Rob Landley escreveu:
I think some kind of "meta busybox" project could be started which could
accumulate people's knowledge in sense of
On Monday 22 December 2008 10:36:23 Alain M. wrote:
> Rob Landley escreveu:
> >> I think some kind of "meta busybox" project could be started which could
> >> accumulate people's knowledge in sense of supplement scripts and
> >> configuration files used with busybox.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
>
Rob Landley escreveu:
>>
>> I think some kind of "meta busybox" project could be started which could
>> accumulate people's knowledge in sense of supplement scripts and
>> configuration files used with busybox.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Can of worms. (Please don't try to turn BusyBox into a L
On Sunday 30 November 2008 04:52:14 Vladimir Dronnikov wrote:
> examples/* are way unstructured. I think it would be more useful to
> maintain a sample root filesystem under examples/. Say, we now have acpid.
> Then examples/etc/acpi/* should contain working scripts. So that people
> could just cop
> On Wednesday 19 November 2008 15:26, Vladimir Dronnikov wrote:
> > I think there is a bunch of such useful scripts. They are smaller than
> their
> > C implementation and are extremely useful. The question still exists
> where
> > to place them in the building tree?
>
> I guess examples/* would d
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 15:26, Vladimir Dronnikov wrote:
> I think there is a bunch of such useful scripts. They are smaller than their
> C implementation and are extremely useful. The question still exists where
> to place them in the building tree?
I guess examples/* would do.
--
vda
_
>The other thing I wanted to mention was the possibility of extending
>this little man script, or creating an alternate, so that it could look
>up man pages from a single file to prevent a whole 1kb, 2kb, 4kb or w/e
>sized inode from being used to hold a single 200 byte compressed ascii
>man pa
Matthew Hiles schrieb:
>
> Though I don't understand this line:
>> "$CAT" "$pagefile" | "$PAGER" "$pagefile"
>
> Shouldn't that be?:
>
> "$CAT" "$pagefile" | "$PAGER"
>
1. i did not test the script. it is a suggestion.
> "$CAT" "$pagefile" | "$PAGER"
that should expand to:
bcat filename
walter harms wrote:
> just to provide an alternative way:
>
> case "$pagefile" in
> *.bz2)
> CAT="bzcat" ;;
> *.gz)
> CAT="zcat" ;;
> *)
> CAT="cat" ;;
> esac
>
> "$CAT" "$pagefile" | "$PAGER" "$pagefile"
>
> this can easily be expanded to dot-whatever-you-like
>
>
Cathey, Jim schrieb:
>> case "$pagefile" in
>> *.bz2)
>>bzcat "$pagefile" | "$PAGER" ;;
>> *.gz)
>>zcat "$pagefile" | "$PAGER" ;;
>> *)
>>"$PAGER" "$pagefile" ;;
>> esac
>>
>> paths=
>> pagefile=
>> pagearg=
>> section=
>
>
> If there is no further work (and I don't see
>case "$pagefile" in
>*.bz2)
>bzcat "$pagefile" | "$PAGER" ;;
>*.gz)
>zcat "$pagefile" | "$PAGER" ;;
>*)
>"$PAGER" "$pagefile" ;;
>esac
>
>paths=
>pagefile=
>pagearg=
>section=
If there is no further work (and I don't see any), is it
not appropriate to "exec" the last step
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 12:54 -0500, Matthew Hiles wrote:
>
>> [ -z $PAGER ] && PAGER=less
>
> you need quotes:
>
> [ -z "$PAGER" ] && PAGER=less
>
>
>> #okay, found the page, try decompressing and displaying
>> case $pagefil
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 12:54 -0500, Matthew Hiles wrote:
> [ -z $PAGER ] && PAGER=less
you need quotes:
[ -z "$PAGER" ] && PAGER=less
> #okay, found the page, try decompressing and displaying
> case $pagefile in
> *.bz2)
>bzcat $pagefile | $PAGER ;;
> *.gz)
>zcat $pagefile | $PA
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Cathey, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One more optimization it needs, it should check
> to see that stdout is a tty and only run the
> pager if it is, else cat. ("man foo >foofile")
> -- Jim
hm.. well the easiest way to code this in is to add a line after the
l
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 19:12 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> What makes you say it's /far more portable than $()/ ?
Just because there are still shells out there that don't implement $()
(msh in busybox is one example, but also IIRC the Solaris /bin/sh falls
into this category).
>What makes you say it's /far more portable than $()/ ?
>Is that because $() was introduced after `` (if so is the case)?
It is the case. Every shell I've ever heard of does ``, the $()
thing showed up with the Korn shell and got propagated into various
other shells. I believe `` is more widely
Paul,
All,
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 18:28:33 Paul Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 18:01 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > Do not forget that back-ticks are not POSIX, while $() is.
> Uh... what?!?! That's absolutely not true. Backticks are
> unquestionably defined in the POSIX sh definit
>if someone were lacking less and more they can just set PAGER to
>cat a viola, lots of scrolling.
With viola you get lots of screeching! :-)
You can even have a PAGER-less run find
its own hierarchy of less/more/cat for them,
et voila, perfect script!
One more optimization it needs, it should
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Cathey, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe it is customary to use an environment
> variable PAGER to allow overriding of less (or
> more, or whatever the system default is). In ksh-speak:
>
> case $pagefile in
> *.bz2)
>bzcat $pagefile | ${PAGER:-
On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 18:01 +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Do not forget that back-ticks are not POSIX, while $() is.
Uh... what?!?! That's absolutely not true. Backticks are
unquestionably defined in the POSIX sh definition. They are not marked
as "old" or "deprecated" or anything similar.
It'
Hello Matthew!
Hello all!
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 16:58:15 Matthew Hiles wrote:
> msh does not appear to support
> $() style command substitution, it does support backticks. I've
> changed the script and it appears to work with msh without any issues.
Do not forget that back-ticks are not P
I believe it is customary to use an environment
variable PAGER to allow overriding of less (or
more, or whatever the system default is). In ksh-speak:
case $pagefile in
*.bz2)
bzcat $pagefile | ${PAGER:-less} ;;
*.gz)
zcat $pagefile | ${PAGER:-less} ;;
*)
${PAGER:-less} $p
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Yann E. MORIN
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Matthew!
> Hello all!
>
> On Wednesday 19 November 2008 16:58:15 Matthew Hiles wrote:
>> msh does not appear to support
>> $() style command substitution, it does support backticks. I've
>> changed the script and it
I'll address all the replies at once.
> I assume that you did not see miscutils/man.c, i fear.
It appears man.c is for nroff files. This is a smaller, simpler
implementation meant to answer the request in the TODO. :D
> Did you test this with msh ?
The first version I posted, I did not. msh
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:15:51AM -0500, Matthew Hiles wrote:
>So I saw this in the TODO file:
>
>>man
>> It would be nice to have a man command. Not one that handles troff or
>> anything, just one that can handle preformatted ascii man pages, possibly
>> compressed. This could probably be a
I think there is a bunch of such useful scripts. They are smaller than their
C implementation and are extremely useful. The question still exists where
to place them in the building tree?
Regards,
--
Vladimir
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
2008/11/19, Matthew Hiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So I saw this in the TODO file:
>
> >man
> > It would be nice to have a man command. Not one that handles troff or
> > anything, just one that can handle preformatted ascii man pages, possibly
> > compressed. This could probably be a script
27 matches
Mail list logo
