Re: dig: single line

2009-03-13 Thread Bill Crawford
On Thursday 12 March 2009 01:46:09 Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: Yes, I need the IP address so I can make a TCP/IP connection. Just out of curiosity, how are making the connection? Most applications can take a hostname for the address to connect to ... -- fedora-list mailing list

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-13 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:01:44 +, Bill Crawford wrote: On Thursday 12 March 2009 01:46:09 Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: Yes, I need the IP address so I can make a TCP/IP connection. Just out of curiosity, how are making the connection? Most applications can take a hostname for the

dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
Is there a way to get dig to return at most one line? For example (on FC7), : #dig +short +search +nomultiline www.ieee.org a165.g.akamai.net. 204.2.177.34 204.2.177.41 is not exactly nomultiline. Thanks, Mike. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe:

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Tim
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 22:18 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: Is there a way to get dig to return at most one line? For example (on FC7), : #dig +short +search +nomultiline www.ieee.org a165.g.akamai.net. 204.2.177.34 204.2.177.41 is not exactly nomultiline. I don't

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:30:00 +1030, Tim wrote: On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 22:18 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: Is there a way to get dig to return at most one line? For example (on FC7), : #dig +short +search +nomultiline www.ieee.org a165.g.akamai.net. 204.2.177.34 204.2.177.41

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:32 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: The head suggestion won't work, because in the above example, it is the second line I want. A trivial excercise for old Shell hands, e.g. program | head -n 2 | tail -n 1 or program | sed -n 2p poc --

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:31:34 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:32 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: The head suggestion won't work, because in the above example, it is the second line I want. A trivial excercise for old Shell hands, e.g. program | head

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 00:13 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:31:34 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:32 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: The head suggestion won't work, because in the above example, it is the second line I want. A

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:46:53 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 00:13 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:31:34 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:32 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: The head suggestion won't work,

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:35:03 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:46:53 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 00:13 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:31:34 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:32

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Tim
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 00:13 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: Yes, but the dig command sometimes returns the result on the first line, and sometimes on the second, so it is necessary to test what you get. Perhaps you should say what sort of information you want, and make a different type of

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:58:28 +1030, Tim wrote: On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 00:13 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: Yes, but the dig command sometimes returns the result on the first line, and sometimes on the second, so it is necessary to test what you get. Perhaps you should say what sort of

Re: dig: single line

2009-03-11 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 00:39 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:35:03 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:46:53 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 00:13 +, Mike -- EMAIL IGNORED wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:31:34