| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 19:18 on Friday 19 November 2010, Peter |
| 2 |
Humphrey did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Friday 19 November 2010 16:40:37 Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 2010-11-19, Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Hello list, |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Just to expose my ignorance again, would someone lift my blinkers |
| 9 |
> > > please? I'm recovering from an infection and my brain is stuck. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > It's time to start pruning old stuff from the website I run, which |
| 12 |
> > > has 2200 files in 200 directories. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > I'm trying to find old images like this: |
| 15 |
> > > find . -iname \*.jpg -exec ls '-cdl' {} \; | cut -d \ -f 5-10 |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > It's obvious how that command finds old images. Can you explain what |
| 18 |
> > it's supposed to do? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The cut command simply strips off the permissions, owner, group and file |
| 21 |
> size. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Never mind, anyway. I've done it by using separate steps instead of |
| 24 |
> trying to combine them. I'm still puzzled though at the different |
| 25 |
> behaviour of ls between command-line and execution by find. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
ls as you are using it is an option to find (not an app or a shell builtin). |
| 29 |
So you need to do |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
find .... -ls |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives