Re^3: text search in a file

Nah - much easier to do something like:

grep -li search_term `find . -type f`
[download]

Assuming there aren't so many files that you exhaust the command shell line length. Or you can check out xargs, or even -exec option on find.

TMTOWTDI - even in shell. :-)

Comment on Re^3: text search in a file Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: text search in a file [OT] by graff (Chancellor) on Aug 11, 2005 at 11:35 UTC
Alas, in addition to having no recursive option in /usr/bin/grep, Solaris also offers the inability to use /usr/bin/find and /usr/bin/xargs like this: `find . -print0 -type f \| xargs -0 grep -li search_term` [download] at least, not in SunOS 5.8 -- I don't know if this has been fixed in more recent releases, but if it hasn't... well, I just don't understand what's wrong with those people at Sun. Solaris users generally benefit from having the GNU tools installed in /usr/local/bin, and putting that in front of /usr/bin in their shell PATH.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: text search in a file by davis (Vicar) on Aug 11, 2005 at 09:28 UTC
While we're on shell stuff, I've got to point out that that doesn't work if there's a lot of files below your current working directory. It'll fail with "argument list too long". Much better is: `$ find . -type f -exec grep -qi search_term {} \; -print` [download] cheers davis Kids, you tried your hardest, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: Never try.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: text search in a file by gellyfish (Monsignor) on Aug 11, 2005 at 09:34 UTC
Even better if you want to optimize the number of sub-processes that get forked: `find . -type f -print \| xargs grep -qi` [download] /J\	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: text search in a file by kwaping (Priest) on Aug 11, 2005 at 15:41 UTC
Thanks! That's a lot nicer to use than what I posted. Just FYI, Solaris' built-in grep doesn't like the q flag. This seems to work well: `find search_path -type f -exec grep -li search_term {} \;` [download] Also, at least on Solaris, that -print causes double output.	[reply] [d/l]