On Thursday 18 December 2008 00:31:56 Robert Bridge wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:17:18 +0200
>
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 December 2008 22:42:34 Robert Bridge wrote:
> > > Or use a wildcard based match.
> > >
> > > namestat.text works, as would name*stat.text
> >
> >
> > na
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:17:18 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 December 2008 22:42:34 Robert Bridge wrote:
>
> > Or use a wildcard based match.
> >
> > namestat.text works, as would name*stat.text
>
>
> name0[01][0-9]{2}stat.text
>
>
> would be better still
>
more typing...
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 22:42:34 Robert Bridge wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:33:35 -0500
>
> Willie Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 08:48:52AM +, Mick wrote:
> > > On Sunday 14 December 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:47:51 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wednesday 17 December 2008, 23:01, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:48:52 +, Mick wrote:
> > Hmm, I tried this with a sequence of files that look like
> > name0001stat.txt to name0198stat.txt, but when I run {0001..0198} it
> > fails because it seems to ignore the zeros in 0001
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:48:52 +, Mick wrote:
> Hmm, I tried this with a sequence of files that look like
> name0001stat.txt to name0198stat.txt, but when I run {0001..0198} it
> fails because it seems to ignore the zeros in 0001 and start counting
> from 1. Do I need to use some escape charact
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:33:35 -0500
Willie Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 08:48:52AM +, Mick wrote:
> > On Sunday 14 December 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:47:51 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > That's why I suggested them :-) I use them a lot, especially
>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 08:48:52AM +, Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 14 December 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:47:51 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > That's why I suggested them :-) I use them a lot, especially when I
> > > have to run the same set of commands on 15 different
On Sunday 14 December 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:47:51 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > That's why I suggested them :-) I use them a lot, especially when I
> > have to run the same set of commands on 15 different hosts, then I do
> > something like:
> >
> > for I in $(seq 1
Neil Bothwick writes:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:47:51 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > for I in $(seq 1 15) ; do
>
> If you're using bash or zsh,you can speed this up with
>
> for I in {1..15}; do
You can even use C style: for (( i=1; i <= 15; i++ )); do
Wonko
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:47:51 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> That's why I suggested them :-) I use them a lot, especially when I
> have to run the same set of commands on 15 different hosts, then I do
> something like:
>
> for I in $(seq 1 15) ; do
If you're using bash or zsh,you can speed this up
On Sunday 14 December 2008 11:06:39 Mick wrote:
> md5sum -c token*.md5sum are the easiest on this occasion, although Alan's
> last two commands are indeed "insanely useful"! ha! They will be saving
> me hours of typing in the future. :)
That's why I suggested them :-) I use them a lot, especia
On Sunday 14 December 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:59:44 -0500, Willie Wong wrote:
> > Why not just a simple bash one-liner
> >
> > for i in token{a..z}; do md5sum -c $i; done
>
> What wrong with
>
> md5sum -c token{a..z}
Thank you all for your suggestions. I think think th
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:59:44 -0500, Willie Wong wrote:
> Why not just a simple bash one-liner
>
> for i in token{a..z}; do md5sum -c $i; done
What wrong with
md5sum -c token{a..z}
--
Neil Bothwick
All Scottish food is based on a dare.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
token* is the best. I also have this useful script in my bashrc.
its just an extended version of this.
[[ $(md5sum < file1) == $(md5sum < file2) ]]
so you can just give it two files as its argument and it returns 0 if they are
the same. -v for verbose
md5() {
local v x y;
[[ $1 =
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:49:50 +
Mick wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there a clever way to enter a string (rather than write a script
> file) so that md5sum will check a whole series of files in one go and
> report success or error; I was thinking along the lines of if $value
> is ... then md5sum -c
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:49:50PM +, Penguin Lover Mick squawked:
> Is there a clever way to enter a string (rather than write a script file) so
> that md5sum will check a whole series of files in one go and report success
> or error; I was thinking along the lines of if $value is ... then
On Sunday 14 December 2008 01:49:50 Mick wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there a clever way to enter a string (rather than write a script file)
> so that md5sum will check a whole series of files in one go and report
> success or error; I was thinking along the lines of if $value is ... then
> md5sum -c .
Hi All,
Is there a clever way to enter a string (rather than write a script file) so
that md5sum will check a whole series of files in one go and report success
or error; I was thinking along the lines of if $value is ... then
md5sum -c ..., but my non-existent scripting knowledge won't take m
18 matches
Mail list logo
