Re: [sleuthkit-developers] Re: [sleuthkit-users] Split Image Question

[David C. <dav...@gm...>]

seq -w will solve that problem a little more elegantly :)


On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:41:58 -0800, Seth Arnold <sa...@im...> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:38:23AM -0500, Brian Carrier wrote:
> > >1.  I feel that there should be a maximum command line size, but
> > >cannot seem to find one.  I just ran some tests that had over 60KB of
> > >data in arguments (390 file names each over 160 bytes long) and there
> > >were no problems.  This was on OS X, so I'm not sure if other OSes are
> > >different.  Anyone know?
> >
> > Actually, I guess this should be shell dependent and not OS dependent.
> > I am using:
> 
> I don't expect any shells would implement the limit on their own. Some
> experiementation shows that it is around 128k on my SuSE 9.2 system with
> a 2.6 kernel and on my Debian 3.0 system with a 2.2 kernel.
> 
> (The exact limit varies based on the environment as well as command line
> arguments.)
> 
> I've heard that some Unix systems have limits of one megabyte! Others
> (such as an old SCO 3.2.4.2 system I used to use) have much lower limits,
> perhaps 8k or 16k or so.. I've since reclaimed those brain cells.
> 
> For 'numbered files' support, I've found that there are -two- popular
> ways to show lists:
>   foo.1
>   foo.2
>   foo.3
>   ...
>   foo.10
>   foo.11
>   ...
> 
> and
>   foo.001
>   foo.002
>   ...
>   foo.010
>   ...
> 
> I've found that the first style can be easily handled with seq(1):
> for f in `seq 1 100` ; do echo foo.${f} ; done
> The second style is only slightly harder:
> for f in `seq 1 100` ; do F=`printf %03d $f` ; echo foo.${F} ; done
> 
> Analogues in perl are left as an exercise for the reader. :)
> 
> 
>