On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Jim Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
> On Fr
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>>>
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>>>
>> +depmod=`whereis depmod | awk '{print $2}'`
>
>>
>>> I suspect
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>>
> +depmod=`whereis depmod | awk '{print $2}'`
>
>> I suspect it'll be hard to come up with something that's 100%
>> foolproof and
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>
+depmod=`whereis depmod | awk '{print $2}'`
>>>
> I suspect it'll be hard to come up with something that's 100%
> foolproof and respects user's choices. Sticking with searching the
> use
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
>> wrote:
>>> The current implementation relies on 'depmod' to be available in the
>>> PATH. It also expects the version number to be
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
> wrote:
>> The current implementation relies on 'depmod' to be available in the
>> PATH. It also expects the version number to be found in the last field
>> as seen by 'awk'. Should the output f
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
wrote:
> The current implementation relies on 'depmod' to be available in the
> PATH. It also expects the version number to be found in the last field
> as seen by 'awk'. Should the output format be different, this approach
> would no longer be re
The current implementation relies on 'depmod' to be available in the
PATH. It also expects the version number to be found in the last field
as seen by 'awk'. Should the output format be different, this approach
would no longer be reliable.
The proposed implementation locates 'depmod', and uses 'se
9 matches
Mail list logo