Script to find files with a specific extension but NOT containing specific text [on hold]











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I am trying to write a script that basically searches recursively using find (or another method to) to find all files ending with *.p or *.w but does not contain sysvars.i or preprocess.i



Is find the best command to use?






find







share|improve this question















put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Kusalananda, n.st, Thomas, GAD3R, Jeff Schaller Nov 25 at 22:09


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • 5




    Do you mean that the name should not contain "sysvars.i" etc. or there should be no such strings in the content of the files?
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:43

















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I am trying to write a script that basically searches recursively using find (or another method to) to find all files ending with *.p or *.w but does not contain sysvars.i or preprocess.i



Is find the best command to use?






find







share|improve this question















put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Kusalananda, n.st, Thomas, GAD3R, Jeff Schaller Nov 25 at 22:09


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • 5




    Do you mean that the name should not contain "sysvars.i" etc. or there should be no such strings in the content of the files?
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:43















up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I am trying to write a script that basically searches recursively using find (or another method to) to find all files ending with *.p or *.w but does not contain sysvars.i or preprocess.i



Is find the best command to use?






find







share|improve this question















I am trying to write a script that basically searches recursively using find (or another method to) to find all files ending with *.p or *.w but does not contain sysvars.i or preprocess.i



Is find the best command to use?






find




find






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 25 at 15:11









Rui F Ribeiro

38.3k1475126




38.3k1475126










asked Aug 1 '11 at 11:24









colin

162




162




put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Kusalananda, n.st, Thomas, GAD3R, Jeff Schaller Nov 25 at 22:09


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Kusalananda, n.st, Thomas, GAD3R, Jeff Schaller Nov 25 at 22:09


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 5




    Do you mean that the name should not contain "sysvars.i" etc. or there should be no such strings in the content of the files?
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:43
















  • 5




    Do you mean that the name should not contain "sysvars.i" etc. or there should be no such strings in the content of the files?
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:43










5




5




Do you mean that the name should not contain "sysvars.i" etc. or there should be no such strings in the content of the files?
– rozcietrzewiacz
Aug 1 '11 at 11:43






Do you mean that the name should not contain "sysvars.i" etc. or there should be no such strings in the content of the files?
– rozcietrzewiacz
Aug 1 '11 at 11:43












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













You can combine the actions of find and grep to accomplish this:



find /search/path/ -type f ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) 

    -exec grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' {} +


Let's break that down.





  • find /serch/path returns all files in the specified path. Next wee need to narrow that down starting with the things that will eliminate the most matches first to save time checking the other things later.


  • -type f returns only files. If you happened to have directories matching the file name pattern, we don't want to send them to grep.


  • ( [expr1] -or [expr2] ) creates an either/or match so that find returns files that metch either expr1 or expr2 but there is no reason it has to match both. The parenthesis help separate this or group from the rest of the matching options that are actually and requirements.


  • -name '*.p' and -name '*.w' are pretty obvious, return files matching those name patterns.


  • -exec command {} + will run the specified command and any arguments with the {} bit replaced with arguments for each file matched by the rest of the find command. The -exec function is preferable to using xargs or piping to a loop because it handles quoting and file name issues so well.


  • grep is used to search for a pattern in the specified files.


    • -L is used to return just a list of file names that do not have matches


    • -e 'PATTERN' is specified twice to list the two search strings you did not want to match.








share|improve this answer























  • That didn't work gave me find {-H} -{L} path-list predicate list
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:47












  • Now tried to use the following code:-
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:49










  • @colin: Can you answer @rozcietrzewiacz's comment on your question so that we know if we understood your question correctly or not? Did you read the explanation for this command and did it all make sense? Perhaps you see something in there that isn't actually what you wanted to accomplish, hence the empty results. Also, are you sure there are files to be found that match all those criteria? Try taking out just the -v on the grep and see if that returns the files that do have that string. Try removing the entire -exec section to see what find is returning as far as files to be searched.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:51








  • 1




    I've never done anything more with grep before, than the simplest of simple patterns; sed has always done what I needed, so I'm on unfamilar ground with its options, but on my Ubuntu system, find -l -v -e doesn't work, and I believe it will only work when every line in a file matches the pattern... However grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' works...
    – Peter.O
    Aug 1 '11 at 15:43








  • 1




    @fred and Caleb: grep -L is not at all the same as grep -lv. grep -L finds files that have no matching line. grep -lv finds files that have at least one non-matching line.
    – Gilles
    Aug 1 '11 at 21:19


















up vote
-1
down vote













It's possible to build complex boolean expressions of find tests:



find . ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) -and 

  -not ( -name 'sysvars.i' -or -name 'preprocess.i' )


Posix compliant options names are -a, -o and ! instead of -and, -or and -not.



If you need to look for strings inside files contents, then you must use find along with grep (for example).






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    The short form of not is -!, not !. The latter refers to command history (by shell expansion).
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:45












  • Ok, so you must be looking for sysvar.i and preprocess.i inside file contents, or the filtering would be useless :-)
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:46






  • 2




    I think the OP was wanting to find files that did not contain those strings. This command doesn't make any sense because matching for the names *.[pw] would already exclude the names (sysvars|preprocess).i.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:49






  • 1




    @rozcietrzewiacz: No, not if used alone. You may escape it with ! if you wish. "The POSIX standard specifies parentheses '(', ')', negation '!' and the and and or operators ('-a', '-o')".
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:00








  • 1




    Voting for removing this answer and the following discussion if the OP's question turns out being related with file contents.
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:09


















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote













You can combine the actions of find and grep to accomplish this:



find /search/path/ -type f ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) 

    -exec grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' {} +


Let's break that down.





  • find /serch/path returns all files in the specified path. Next wee need to narrow that down starting with the things that will eliminate the most matches first to save time checking the other things later.


  • -type f returns only files. If you happened to have directories matching the file name pattern, we don't want to send them to grep.


  • ( [expr1] -or [expr2] ) creates an either/or match so that find returns files that metch either expr1 or expr2 but there is no reason it has to match both. The parenthesis help separate this or group from the rest of the matching options that are actually and requirements.


  • -name '*.p' and -name '*.w' are pretty obvious, return files matching those name patterns.


  • -exec command {} + will run the specified command and any arguments with the {} bit replaced with arguments for each file matched by the rest of the find command. The -exec function is preferable to using xargs or piping to a loop because it handles quoting and file name issues so well.


  • grep is used to search for a pattern in the specified files.


    • -L is used to return just a list of file names that do not have matches


    • -e 'PATTERN' is specified twice to list the two search strings you did not want to match.








share|improve this answer























  • That didn't work gave me find {-H} -{L} path-list predicate list
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:47












  • Now tried to use the following code:-
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:49










  • @colin: Can you answer @rozcietrzewiacz's comment on your question so that we know if we understood your question correctly or not? Did you read the explanation for this command and did it all make sense? Perhaps you see something in there that isn't actually what you wanted to accomplish, hence the empty results. Also, are you sure there are files to be found that match all those criteria? Try taking out just the -v on the grep and see if that returns the files that do have that string. Try removing the entire -exec section to see what find is returning as far as files to be searched.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:51








  • 1




    I've never done anything more with grep before, than the simplest of simple patterns; sed has always done what I needed, so I'm on unfamilar ground with its options, but on my Ubuntu system, find -l -v -e doesn't work, and I believe it will only work when every line in a file matches the pattern... However grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' works...
    – Peter.O
    Aug 1 '11 at 15:43








  • 1




    @fred and Caleb: grep -L is not at all the same as grep -lv. grep -L finds files that have no matching line. grep -lv finds files that have at least one non-matching line.
    – Gilles
    Aug 1 '11 at 21:19















up vote
4
down vote













You can combine the actions of find and grep to accomplish this:



find /search/path/ -type f ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) 

    -exec grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' {} +


Let's break that down.





  • find /serch/path returns all files in the specified path. Next wee need to narrow that down starting with the things that will eliminate the most matches first to save time checking the other things later.


  • -type f returns only files. If you happened to have directories matching the file name pattern, we don't want to send them to grep.


  • ( [expr1] -or [expr2] ) creates an either/or match so that find returns files that metch either expr1 or expr2 but there is no reason it has to match both. The parenthesis help separate this or group from the rest of the matching options that are actually and requirements.


  • -name '*.p' and -name '*.w' are pretty obvious, return files matching those name patterns.


  • -exec command {} + will run the specified command and any arguments with the {} bit replaced with arguments for each file matched by the rest of the find command. The -exec function is preferable to using xargs or piping to a loop because it handles quoting and file name issues so well.


  • grep is used to search for a pattern in the specified files.


    • -L is used to return just a list of file names that do not have matches


    • -e 'PATTERN' is specified twice to list the two search strings you did not want to match.








share|improve this answer























  • That didn't work gave me find {-H} -{L} path-list predicate list
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:47












  • Now tried to use the following code:-
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:49










  • @colin: Can you answer @rozcietrzewiacz's comment on your question so that we know if we understood your question correctly or not? Did you read the explanation for this command and did it all make sense? Perhaps you see something in there that isn't actually what you wanted to accomplish, hence the empty results. Also, are you sure there are files to be found that match all those criteria? Try taking out just the -v on the grep and see if that returns the files that do have that string. Try removing the entire -exec section to see what find is returning as far as files to be searched.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:51








  • 1




    I've never done anything more with grep before, than the simplest of simple patterns; sed has always done what I needed, so I'm on unfamilar ground with its options, but on my Ubuntu system, find -l -v -e doesn't work, and I believe it will only work when every line in a file matches the pattern... However grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' works...
    – Peter.O
    Aug 1 '11 at 15:43








  • 1




    @fred and Caleb: grep -L is not at all the same as grep -lv. grep -L finds files that have no matching line. grep -lv finds files that have at least one non-matching line.
    – Gilles
    Aug 1 '11 at 21:19













up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









You can combine the actions of find and grep to accomplish this:



find /search/path/ -type f ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) 

    -exec grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' {} +


Let's break that down.





  • find /serch/path returns all files in the specified path. Next wee need to narrow that down starting with the things that will eliminate the most matches first to save time checking the other things later.


  • -type f returns only files. If you happened to have directories matching the file name pattern, we don't want to send them to grep.


  • ( [expr1] -or [expr2] ) creates an either/or match so that find returns files that metch either expr1 or expr2 but there is no reason it has to match both. The parenthesis help separate this or group from the rest of the matching options that are actually and requirements.


  • -name '*.p' and -name '*.w' are pretty obvious, return files matching those name patterns.


  • -exec command {} + will run the specified command and any arguments with the {} bit replaced with arguments for each file matched by the rest of the find command. The -exec function is preferable to using xargs or piping to a loop because it handles quoting and file name issues so well.


  • grep is used to search for a pattern in the specified files.


    • -L is used to return just a list of file names that do not have matches


    • -e 'PATTERN' is specified twice to list the two search strings you did not want to match.








share|improve this answer














You can combine the actions of find and grep to accomplish this:



find /search/path/ -type f ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) 

    -exec grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' {} +


Let's break that down.





  • find /serch/path returns all files in the specified path. Next wee need to narrow that down starting with the things that will eliminate the most matches first to save time checking the other things later.


  • -type f returns only files. If you happened to have directories matching the file name pattern, we don't want to send them to grep.


  • ( [expr1] -or [expr2] ) creates an either/or match so that find returns files that metch either expr1 or expr2 but there is no reason it has to match both. The parenthesis help separate this or group from the rest of the matching options that are actually and requirements.


  • -name '*.p' and -name '*.w' are pretty obvious, return files matching those name patterns.


  • -exec command {} + will run the specified command and any arguments with the {} bit replaced with arguments for each file matched by the rest of the find command. The -exec function is preferable to using xargs or piping to a loop because it handles quoting and file name issues so well.


  • grep is used to search for a pattern in the specified files.


    • -L is used to return just a list of file names that do not have matches


    • -e 'PATTERN' is specified twice to list the two search strings you did not want to match.









share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Aug 1 '11 at 16:41

























answered Aug 1 '11 at 11:34









Caleb

50k9146190




50k9146190












  • That didn't work gave me find {-H} -{L} path-list predicate list
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:47












  • Now tried to use the following code:-
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:49










  • @colin: Can you answer @rozcietrzewiacz's comment on your question so that we know if we understood your question correctly or not? Did you read the explanation for this command and did it all make sense? Perhaps you see something in there that isn't actually what you wanted to accomplish, hence the empty results. Also, are you sure there are files to be found that match all those criteria? Try taking out just the -v on the grep and see if that returns the files that do have that string. Try removing the entire -exec section to see what find is returning as far as files to be searched.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:51








  • 1




    I've never done anything more with grep before, than the simplest of simple patterns; sed has always done what I needed, so I'm on unfamilar ground with its options, but on my Ubuntu system, find -l -v -e doesn't work, and I believe it will only work when every line in a file matches the pattern... However grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' works...
    – Peter.O
    Aug 1 '11 at 15:43








  • 1




    @fred and Caleb: grep -L is not at all the same as grep -lv. grep -L finds files that have no matching line. grep -lv finds files that have at least one non-matching line.
    – Gilles
    Aug 1 '11 at 21:19


















  • That didn't work gave me find {-H} -{L} path-list predicate list
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:47












  • Now tried to use the following code:-
    – colin
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:49










  • @colin: Can you answer @rozcietrzewiacz's comment on your question so that we know if we understood your question correctly or not? Did you read the explanation for this command and did it all make sense? Perhaps you see something in there that isn't actually what you wanted to accomplish, hence the empty results. Also, are you sure there are files to be found that match all those criteria? Try taking out just the -v on the grep and see if that returns the files that do have that string. Try removing the entire -exec section to see what find is returning as far as files to be searched.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:51








  • 1




    I've never done anything more with grep before, than the simplest of simple patterns; sed has always done what I needed, so I'm on unfamilar ground with its options, but on my Ubuntu system, find -l -v -e doesn't work, and I believe it will only work when every line in a file matches the pattern... However grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' works...
    – Peter.O
    Aug 1 '11 at 15:43








  • 1




    @fred and Caleb: grep -L is not at all the same as grep -lv. grep -L finds files that have no matching line. grep -lv finds files that have at least one non-matching line.
    – Gilles
    Aug 1 '11 at 21:19
















That didn't work gave me find {-H} -{L} path-list predicate list
– colin
Aug 1 '11 at 12:47






That didn't work gave me find {-H} -{L} path-list predicate list
– colin
Aug 1 '11 at 12:47














Now tried to use the following code:-
– colin
Aug 1 '11 at 12:49




Now tried to use the following code:-
– colin
Aug 1 '11 at 12:49












@colin: Can you answer @rozcietrzewiacz's comment on your question so that we know if we understood your question correctly or not? Did you read the explanation for this command and did it all make sense? Perhaps you see something in there that isn't actually what you wanted to accomplish, hence the empty results. Also, are you sure there are files to be found that match all those criteria? Try taking out just the -v on the grep and see if that returns the files that do have that string. Try removing the entire -exec section to see what find is returning as far as files to be searched.
– Caleb
Aug 1 '11 at 12:51






@colin: Can you answer @rozcietrzewiacz's comment on your question so that we know if we understood your question correctly or not? Did you read the explanation for this command and did it all make sense? Perhaps you see something in there that isn't actually what you wanted to accomplish, hence the empty results. Also, are you sure there are files to be found that match all those criteria? Try taking out just the -v on the grep and see if that returns the files that do have that string. Try removing the entire -exec section to see what find is returning as far as files to be searched.
– Caleb
Aug 1 '11 at 12:51






1




1




I've never done anything more with grep before, than the simplest of simple patterns; sed has always done what I needed, so I'm on unfamilar ground with its options, but on my Ubuntu system, find -l -v -e doesn't work, and I believe it will only work when every line in a file matches the pattern... However grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' works...
– Peter.O
Aug 1 '11 at 15:43






I've never done anything more with grep before, than the simplest of simple patterns; sed has always done what I needed, so I'm on unfamilar ground with its options, but on my Ubuntu system, find -l -v -e doesn't work, and I believe it will only work when every line in a file matches the pattern... However grep -L -e 'sysvars.i' -e 'preprocess.i' works...
– Peter.O
Aug 1 '11 at 15:43






1




1




@fred and Caleb: grep -L is not at all the same as grep -lv. grep -L finds files that have no matching line. grep -lv finds files that have at least one non-matching line.
– Gilles
Aug 1 '11 at 21:19




@fred and Caleb: grep -L is not at all the same as grep -lv. grep -L finds files that have no matching line. grep -lv finds files that have at least one non-matching line.
– Gilles
Aug 1 '11 at 21:19












up vote
-1
down vote













It's possible to build complex boolean expressions of find tests:



find . ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) -and 

  -not ( -name 'sysvars.i' -or -name 'preprocess.i' )


Posix compliant options names are -a, -o and ! instead of -and, -or and -not.



If you need to look for strings inside files contents, then you must use find along with grep (for example).






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    The short form of not is -!, not !. The latter refers to command history (by shell expansion).
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:45












  • Ok, so you must be looking for sysvar.i and preprocess.i inside file contents, or the filtering would be useless :-)
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:46






  • 2




    I think the OP was wanting to find files that did not contain those strings. This command doesn't make any sense because matching for the names *.[pw] would already exclude the names (sysvars|preprocess).i.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:49






  • 1




    @rozcietrzewiacz: No, not if used alone. You may escape it with ! if you wish. "The POSIX standard specifies parentheses '(', ')', negation '!' and the and and or operators ('-a', '-o')".
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:00








  • 1




    Voting for removing this answer and the following discussion if the OP's question turns out being related with file contents.
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:09















up vote
-1
down vote













It's possible to build complex boolean expressions of find tests:



find . ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) -and 

  -not ( -name 'sysvars.i' -or -name 'preprocess.i' )


Posix compliant options names are -a, -o and ! instead of -and, -or and -not.



If you need to look for strings inside files contents, then you must use find along with grep (for example).






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    The short form of not is -!, not !. The latter refers to command history (by shell expansion).
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:45












  • Ok, so you must be looking for sysvar.i and preprocess.i inside file contents, or the filtering would be useless :-)
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:46






  • 2




    I think the OP was wanting to find files that did not contain those strings. This command doesn't make any sense because matching for the names *.[pw] would already exclude the names (sysvars|preprocess).i.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:49






  • 1




    @rozcietrzewiacz: No, not if used alone. You may escape it with ! if you wish. "The POSIX standard specifies parentheses '(', ')', negation '!' and the and and or operators ('-a', '-o')".
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:00








  • 1




    Voting for removing this answer and the following discussion if the OP's question turns out being related with file contents.
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:09













up vote
-1
down vote










up vote
-1
down vote









It's possible to build complex boolean expressions of find tests:



find . ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) -and 

  -not ( -name 'sysvars.i' -or -name 'preprocess.i' )


Posix compliant options names are -a, -o and ! instead of -and, -or and -not.



If you need to look for strings inside files contents, then you must use find along with grep (for example).






share|improve this answer














It's possible to build complex boolean expressions of find tests:



find . ( -name '*.p' -or -name '*.w' ) -and 

  -not ( -name 'sysvars.i' -or -name 'preprocess.i' )


Posix compliant options names are -a, -o and ! instead of -and, -or and -not.



If you need to look for strings inside files contents, then you must use find along with grep (for example).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Aug 1 '11 at 11:41

























answered Aug 1 '11 at 11:33









Stéphane Gimenez

19k15074




19k15074








  • 1




    The short form of not is -!, not !. The latter refers to command history (by shell expansion).
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:45












  • Ok, so you must be looking for sysvar.i and preprocess.i inside file contents, or the filtering would be useless :-)
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:46






  • 2




    I think the OP was wanting to find files that did not contain those strings. This command doesn't make any sense because matching for the names *.[pw] would already exclude the names (sysvars|preprocess).i.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:49






  • 1




    @rozcietrzewiacz: No, not if used alone. You may escape it with ! if you wish. "The POSIX standard specifies parentheses '(', ')', negation '!' and the and and or operators ('-a', '-o')".
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:00








  • 1




    Voting for removing this answer and the following discussion if the OP's question turns out being related with file contents.
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:09














  • 1




    The short form of not is -!, not !. The latter refers to command history (by shell expansion).
    – rozcietrzewiacz
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:45












  • Ok, so you must be looking for sysvar.i and preprocess.i inside file contents, or the filtering would be useless :-)
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:46






  • 2




    I think the OP was wanting to find files that did not contain those strings. This command doesn't make any sense because matching for the names *.[pw] would already exclude the names (sysvars|preprocess).i.
    – Caleb
    Aug 1 '11 at 11:49






  • 1




    @rozcietrzewiacz: No, not if used alone. You may escape it with ! if you wish. "The POSIX standard specifies parentheses '(', ')', negation '!' and the and and or operators ('-a', '-o')".
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:00








  • 1




    Voting for removing this answer and the following discussion if the OP's question turns out being related with file contents.
    – Stéphane Gimenez
    Aug 1 '11 at 12:09








1




1




The short form of not is -!, not !. The latter refers to command history (by shell expansion).
– rozcietrzewiacz
Aug 1 '11 at 11:45






The short form of not is -!, not !. The latter refers to command history (by shell expansion).
– rozcietrzewiacz
Aug 1 '11 at 11:45














Ok, so you must be looking for sysvar.i and preprocess.i inside file contents, or the filtering would be useless :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Aug 1 '11 at 11:46




Ok, so you must be looking for sysvar.i and preprocess.i inside file contents, or the filtering would be useless :-)
– Stéphane Gimenez
Aug 1 '11 at 11:46




2




2




I think the OP was wanting to find files that did not contain those strings. This command doesn't make any sense because matching for the names *.[pw] would already exclude the names (sysvars|preprocess).i.
– Caleb
Aug 1 '11 at 11:49




I think the OP was wanting to find files that did not contain those strings. This command doesn't make any sense because matching for the names *.[pw] would already exclude the names (sysvars|preprocess).i.
– Caleb
Aug 1 '11 at 11:49




1




1




@rozcietrzewiacz: No, not if used alone. You may escape it with ! if you wish. "The POSIX standard specifies parentheses '(', ')', negation '!' and the and and or operators ('-a', '-o')".
– Stéphane Gimenez
Aug 1 '11 at 12:00






@rozcietrzewiacz: No, not if used alone. You may escape it with ! if you wish. "The POSIX standard specifies parentheses '(', ')', negation '!' and the and and or operators ('-a', '-o')".
– Stéphane Gimenez
Aug 1 '11 at 12:00






1




1




Voting for removing this answer and the following discussion if the OP's question turns out being related with file contents.
– Stéphane Gimenez
Aug 1 '11 at 12:09




Voting for removing this answer and the following discussion if the OP's question turns out being related with file contents.
– Stéphane Gimenez
Aug 1 '11 at 12:09



-

Popular posts from this blog

Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux

Image
4 Backstory: I have a Huawei HG8245 router in my house and I want to change the default username/password. I've tried following this guide but the config file always gets reset. My ISP isn't helping either so I'm looking for other ways to accomplish this. The router has telnet access so this seems like a way to change the credentials. The first shell I gain access to looks like this: WAP> Pressing "?" gives me a list of available commands which I've pasted here, the two interesting ones are "su" and "shell". I can't seem to get su access, even after logging in as root (challenge password prompt, and then nothing happens), but shell gives me a proper linux shell. WAP>shell BusyBox v1.18.4 (2017-12-26 17:06:34 CST) built-in shell (ash) Enter 'hel...
Read more

Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down

Image
up vote 3 down vote favorite I have bluez 5.4.3 and I am attempting to communicate with a ble device through minicom. These two deceives (my computer and a bluno nano) are alreadt paired and this has been my method so far. #bluetoothctl # pair xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # exit Everything is working well so far then... #sudo rfcomm connect /dev/rfcomm0 xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx 1 & [1] 3665 Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down Does anyone know how to resolve this issue? Any help would be very much appreciated. bluetooth bluez share | improve this question asked Feb 9 '17 at 18:46 Brandon Knape 46 2 ...
Read more

Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Exception in Interrupt

Image
0 Every day this error occured on my pc, kernel panic error on interrupt, what will be the problem? linux-mint share asked 6 mins ago Vinod Selvin Vinod Selvin 1 1 New contributor Vinod Selvin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment ...
Read more