Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Herb Martin" To: Subject: RE: Xargs positioning the arguments in a command -- is this a bug or a feature? Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:33:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <082820050008.6266.4311005F000E99680000187A22069984990A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net> Message-ID: X-Sign-LQC: HerbM AT learnquick DOT com/2005-08-27 19:33:07/=zomvayed > [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On Behalf Of Eric Blake > > It is an unusual command that requires switches to appear in a > > specific order, especially when the switches are not directly > > dependent on each other. > > The upcoming findutils-4.2.25-1 (whenever upstream releases > 4.2.25) better documents this. -i is being deprecated in > favor of POSIX -I, which requires an argument, whereas the > non-standard -i treated its argument as optional. So what > may be happening (although you'd actually have to debug to > see for sure) is that -i -n treats -n as the string to > replace, instead of the default {}. But that sounds odd, and > it may be an upstream bug; I'll investigate further. > > -- > Eric Blake Thanks, Eric. That is very cool of you to check. FYI: I had trouble with -I, and with --string, and even trying to specify the replacement string using -i, although I didn't exercise those other options as carefully as the "-i" and default {}. -- Herb Martin -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/