131–140 of 225 posts
I wish there was a short and simple command for “list all files of a directory and no subdirectories“. ls doesn’t seem to have a switch for that kind of functionality. It’s discussed on stack-overflow. [0] Someone even wrote a nodejs tool for this functionality [1], but I would rather have something written in a compiled language. [0]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10574794/how-to-list-onl... [1]: https://githu…
ls *(.) if you use zsh.
I seriously hate this package and the manner of combining different utils with different names in a same package in general. The reason being, "sponge" is an actually useful tool and for me it's pretty much the only useful tool in the package. So I need to install whole moreutils package on ubuntu to have "sponge" and I have to clog my bin namespace with all this trash. It would be mildly annoying from the perfection…
would it solve the problem if the author namespaced the commands with a hyphenated prefix? curious about these considerations, which it seems like you've spent time thinking about. what do you see as the "best practices" regarding a set of utilities that are maintained and published together?
I seriously hate this package and the manner of combining different utils with different names in a same package in general. The reason being, "sponge" is an actually useful tool and for me it's pretty much the only useful tool in the package. So I need to install whole moreutils package on ubuntu to have "sponge" and I have to clog my bin namespace with all this trash. It would be mildly annoying from the perfection…
you raise a great point. why not install the package, then delete the /usr/bin files you don't need? would it solve the problem if the author namespaced the commands with a hyphenated prefix? curious about these considerations, which it seems like you've spent time thinking about. what do you see as the "best practices" regarding a set of utilities that are maintained and published together?
I think if tools are absolutely unrelated, they just should be distributed as a separate packages. GNU coreutils is tolerated mostly because it's so ubiquitous (so much, that it causes Stallman to grumble about "you mean GNU/Linux, not Linux"). moreutils is late to the party, it isn't ubiquitous, and the usefulness of any tool in the package is questionable, so the author really shouldn't be so brave to assume that if he thought he needed all of them, everyone will.
If there is a reason enough to distribute a package with several separate callable binaries (as with ImageMagick), I think git or GraphicsMagick are perfect examples of how it should be done. Hypenated prefix is also ok. Even if your tool is supposed to be used by somebody 50 times a day, too long of a name isn't really a problem, since user can always just make an alias (as I do with most of the tools I use frequently).
Sure you can always combine binaries from 2 packages manually, but as I said, it just requires some tinkering, so I cannot simply have in some textfile a list of utils to install on a new PC in a matter of minutes.
I seriously hate this package and the manner of combining different utils with different names in a same package in general. The reason being, "sponge" is an actually useful tool and for me it's pretty much the only useful tool in the package. So I need to install whole moreutils package on ubuntu to have "sponge" and I have to clog my bin namespace with all this trash. It would be mildly annoying from the perfection…
Is there a way to namespace on install? Or does that have to be configured in the package?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
find doesn't return the same output as ls when run on another directory. Maybe there is a switch to do this? I'm not sure. $ mkdir -p tmp && touch tmp/a tmp/b tmp/c $ find ./tmp -maxdepth 1 -type f ./tmp/a ./tmp/c ./tmp/b $ ls -1 ./tmp a b c
+ $ find /tmp/x ! -path /tmp/x -prune -type f -exec sh -c 'for p; do printf '\''%s\n'\'' "${p##*/}"; done' - {} + c b a Seems to do the trick and is POSIX only (so works on busybox and mac). You can probably just tack `| sort` at the end if you want it sorted.
People value software that's easy to use. That command you typed is a Frankenstein's monster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not use > file? This, I learned the hard way, and I am not the only one. So in order for you not to make that mistake: the first thing that happens is that "file" is truncated, that happens before any command is run, so sed s/foo/bar/ file > file will always result in an empty "file", because it will be truncated before "sed" is run. I lost a couple of hours of work like that, once, and then I learned. From the…
Try sed s/foo/bar/ -i file to edit file.
This, btw, is why I hate shell scripts. There are so many variants of bourne shells and UNIX tools that writing a portable script is a minefield, as if properly dealing with spaces wasn't tricky enough...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the top answer has it: > find . -maxdepth 1 -type f A little clunky, but there's certainly no need to mess about in JavaScript land. If you use it often, create a shell macro.
find doesn't return the same output as ls when run on another directory. Maybe there is a switch to do this? I'm not sure. $ mkdir -p tmp && touch tmp/a tmp/b tmp/c $ find ./tmp -maxdepth 1 -type f ./tmp/a ./tmp/c ./tmp/b $ ls -1 ./tmp a b c
$ (cd tmp && find . -maxdepth 1 -type f)I wish there was a short and simple command for “list all files of a directory and no subdirectories“. ls doesn’t seem to have a switch for that kind of functionality. It’s discussed on stack-overflow. [0] Someone even wrote a nodejs tool for this functionality [1], but I would rather have something written in a compiled language. [0]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10574794/how-to-list-onl... [1]: https://githu…
ls -1p | grep -v '/$'
function lsd {
ls -1p $* | grep '/$'
}Nice collection of quite useful tools. Some of these can be easily replicated by using a more modern shell (bash, zsh) like mispipe, others are just shortcuts (e.g. ifne, chronic). But what immediately stood out to me is `vidir`. I really like the idea of editing file names with an editor. Using loops and regex in a shell for mass renaming can be a mess. It should be way easier with `vim`. This tool made me install m…