| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 18/07/12 04:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The other approach, which is on the bug, still has this issue, |
| 7 |
> e.g. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> /etc/init.d/foo command1 arg1 arg2 command2 arg3 arg4 command3 |
| 10 |
> arg5 |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> gets pretty ugly pretty quick. which arguments go with which |
| 13 |
> commands is subject to interpretation. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
..i don't see how...? anything to the right of [command] but before |
| 16 |
{[other-command],$END} is an argument to [command] ... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
ie, the above would roll out to: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
/etc/init.d/foo command1 arg1 arg2 && \ |
| 21 |
/etc/init.d/foo command2 arg3 arg4 && \ |
| 22 |
/etc/init.d/foo command3 arg5 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
(assuming subsequent commands do not execute if the previous one fails |
| 25 |
now, which tbh I have no idea about) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's not the most pretty syntax ever, but given i doubt it will be |
| 28 |
humans running such a commandline I don't see the issue with this.. |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlAHGZUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCXNAD8DR8qHFOQnGCt2W+sOXYJDsXu |
| 33 |
H6pnnFt09ssbuKjKHZwA/2pZxnGnXJTWGVdPySoIsJtr8Pe6Za9yeL4yQ0WHPocr |
| 34 |
=G3H9 |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives