Thanks to all for the responses.
Interestingly, everyone has come back with "find" (followed by......) as
the best option. Perhaps this is simply a reflection of the fact my 3
examples all used 'find'.
I have always thought (believed) 'find' was a less efficient process
than 'locate' and kind of hoped 'locate' (or some other cmd I don't
know) might pop up as a solution. I understand 'locate' depends on an
updated 'db', but I figured that indexing process was still more
efficient than 'find' trawling the structure in realtime.
Kyle
On 22-05-2014 19:16, Darragh Bailey wrote:
Hi Kyle,
You might find it worth looking at the following invocation of find:
find <top_dir> -name <name_to_del> -exec rm -rf {} \+ -prune
the '+' will support expansion of arguments, thus it works exactly
like xargs in building up a command line that is passed to rm. You may
also need to specify \"{}\" to handle whitespace in directory names,
untested.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
