X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	Adam Dinwoodie <Adam DOT Dinwoodie AT metaswitch DOT com>
To:	"cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: xargs: Why does order of command line switches matter?
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:01:50 +0000
Deferred-Delivery:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:01:00 +0000
Message-ID:	<CE9C056E12502146A72FD81290379E9A2C53B203@ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
References:	<1335349788 DOT 2627 DOT 140661067092681 DOT 0CBF054A AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com> <4F97DA45 DOT 9050100 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
In-Reply-To:	<4F97DA45.9050100@cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id q3PD4Kim003788

Eliot Moss wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 6:29 AM, Ronald Fischer wrote:
> > Why do I get a different output in the following two invocations of
> > xargs? I had expected that the relative order of the command line
> > switches (-I, -L) would not matter:
> >
> > $ ls | xargs -I DIR -L 1 echo DIR
> > DIR wontprint.txt
> > DIR x.cmd
> > DIR x.pl
> > DIR x.sh
> > $ ls | xargs -L 1 -I DIR echo DIR
> > wontprint.txt
> > x.cmd
> > x.pl
> > x.sh
>
> My guess is that this behavior is passed on from the upstream
> implementation and is not specific to cygwin, which means that
> the appeal for a change would probably need to be lodged
> elsewhere ...

I've just verified that this behaviour exists on Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 6.2, so this is not a Cygwin problem.

I suspect you'll want to raise this on the findutils mailing list; from
the bottom of `man xargs`:

> The best way to report a bug is to use the form at
> http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=findutils. The reason for this is
> that you will then be able to track progress in fixing the problem.
> Other comments about xargs(1) and about the findutils package in
> general can be sent to the bug-findutils mailing list. To join the
> list, send email to bug-findutils-request AT gnu DOT org.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -