On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Peter Bloomfield
peterbloomfi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On 09/02/2009 10:07 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/02/2009 11:39 AM, Jerry James wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Togamiwtogami redhat com wrote:
What is the correct behavior? Is this a
On 09/02/2009 11:39 AM, Jerry James wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Togamiwtog...@redhat.com wrote:
What is the correct behavior? Is this a bug that it changed?
Read up on the --follow-symlinks option to sed.
This is a new option it seems, meaning I can't rely on sed -i at
On 09/02/2009 10:07 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/02/2009 11:39 AM, Jerry James wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Togamiwtogami redhat com
wrote:
What is the correct behavior? Is this a bug that it changed?
Read up on the --follow-symlinks option to sed.
This is a new
I just noticed some behavior changes within sed. Run the following
commands in various distros.
#!/bin/bash
set -x
echo abc original.txt
ln -s original.txt symlink.txt
sed -i 's/abc/123/' symlink.txt
if [ -L symlink.txt ]; then
echo yes symlink
else
echo not symlink anymore
fi
cat
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Togamiwtog...@redhat.com wrote:
What is the correct behavior? Is this a bug that it changed?
Read up on the --follow-symlinks option to sed.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com wrote:
I just noticed some behavior changes within sed. Run the following
commands in various distros.
#!/bin/bash
set -x
echo abc original.txt
ln -s original.txt symlink.txt
sed -i 's/abc/123/' symlink.txt
if [ -L
