Re: [SLE] find command in SuSE 9.2 don't work properly

• Previous message: contiemilio_at_virgilio.it: "Re: [SLE] Setting environment variables"
• In reply to: Randall R Schulz: "Re: [SLE] find command in SuSE 9.2 don't work properly"
• Next in thread: Randall R Schulz: "Re: [SLE] find command in SuSE 9.2 don't work properly"
• Reply: Randall R Schulz: "Re: [SLE] find command in SuSE 9.2 don't work properly"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 01:44:29 +0100

Randall,

Randall R Schulz wrote:

>Joe,
>
>On Tuesday 04 January 2005 06:45, Joe Polk wrote:
>
>
>>---------- Original Message -----------
>>From: Randall R Schulz <rschulz@sonic.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Nonetheless, there is no problem. Just your failure to acknowledge
>>>mareality. Find does what it does. If you can't deal with that, don't
>>>use it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Martin Markgraf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Randall Schulz
>>>
>>>
>>Okay, that is absolutely stupid. He clearly outlined a problem.
>>
>>
>
>A problem that exists entirely within his (lack of) understanding of the
>software he's using.
>
>
I feel I have to second Joe's opinion. If the answer to
find /media/cdrom "something"
is ". has changed during ....."
that sounds like a fault (or at least faulty diagnostics) to me unless
you mount a writable media there.
The locate-solution wouldn't work for me since most of my important
files that I care to find are mounted via nfs.

I can't really comment on the "ls -lR"-issue but there could be a
problem with links. OOffice for example creates a link to my home
directory _in_ my home directory resulting in much recursive pain when
using find.

>>Let
>>me paint a picture that you seem to have a problem seeing. If you run
>>a find command exactly the same on every other distro and it works,
>>but doesn't in SuSE 9.2, guess what, Skippy, IT'S BROKE! THERE'S A
>>PROBLEM!
>>
>>
>
>I'm sorry, but this is faulty logic. It would be valid only if the only
>thing that changed between the two distributions was find itself. Do
>you believe that's true?
>
>
Well, you put it a little to simply. Adherence to some basic
command-behavior can and should be expected.
I guess you'd agree if the behavior of "test" was changed. And I find
your logic faulty. If it works here and crashes there, who cares what
else was changed? He doesn't blame the distro, he rightly blames the
command.

>>I'm really tired of people setting up 9.2 or any other
>>distro as some sort of Holy Grail.
>>
>>
>
>This is baseless and irrelevant. I'm running 9.1 and I can see the
>symptom. As I said in my first reply on this topic, it happens with Gnu
>find running under Cygwin on Windows.
>
>
So maybe it's a known bug. Doesn't make it right.

>>It has problems.
>>
>>
>
>It is working correctly.
>
>
Is it? It seems to have some strange problems with subfs. The
problem-that-is-none you observed on cygwin may be related to something
different.

>>Maybe not for
>>everyone, but it does for some.
>>
>>
>
>It exhibits different behaviors on different systems because the systems
>are different, not because it is broken on some systems.
>
>
Including the possibility that it shows _bugs_ only on some systems.

>>For what it's worth, I've seen this
>>same behavior. Commands that I routinely run with find failing with
>>that same exact syntax. Guess what? They worked on 9.0. Furthermore,
>>it's nice that a work around was offered; hat's off! Yet, that
>>doesn't negate the basic problem: find has a bug or some other issue.
>>
>>
>
>Find does not have a bug. At least not regarding this behavior.
>
>
see above.

>>The point of bringing it up here isn't to shoot your sacred cow.
>>
>>
>
>I have no sacred cows, but I cannot allow false information and faulty
>logic to enter the SuSE-Linux-E archive unchallenged.
>
>
>
>
>>It's
>>to draw attention to it and have someone, someone MATURE, take
>>notice. Grow up!
>>
>>
>
>I don't need to be told to "grow up" by you. I'm the only one here
>explaining real facts and using valid logic.
>
>
Well, Joe's statement isn't exactly mature but your insisting that a
real problem of his simply is nonexistent doesn't help...

<snip emerging flames>

>>--
>><<JAV>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Randall Schulz
>
>
>
Aaah, while writing this, it begins to dawn on me:
automount mounts and changes /media/cdrom to search in it. So Randall is
right, it is not, strictly speaking, a bug. Nevertheless, it seems not
to happen on prior versions. And it is not "intelligent" behavior,
doesn't happen with nfs-mounts for example. Best workaround seems to be
to change cdrom etc. to the "old" behaviour.

The behavior is consistent, though, and I wonder why it didn't happen
earlier.

This said, you are right. This doesn't touch my criticism since you only
said "find did it for many years" which is 1) not helpful, 2) no
argument at all, and 3) not true, this special incarnation is an
artifact of the subfs-mechanism.

No offence meant, I've read many helpful and patient mails from you,
just felt you were a little unjust here.

A happy new year to all of you!
Kolja

-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

• Previous message: contiemilio_at_virgilio.it: "Re: [SLE] Setting environment variables"
• In reply to: Randall R Schulz: "Re: [SLE] find command in SuSE 9.2 don't work properly"
• Next in thread: Randall R Schulz: "Re: [SLE] find command in SuSE 9.2 don't work properly"
• Reply: Randall R Schulz: "Re: [SLE] find command in SuSE 9.2 don't work properly"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]