What is an equivalent of rm `find lib/ -name *.swp` without find?
I would like to remove all files in the lib directory with .swp in the end.
How can I do this without find in:
rm `find lib/ -name *.swp`
find wildcards rm
edited Feb 10 at 19:04
Rui F Ribeiro
40.5k1479137
asked Jan 21 '13 at 22:04
PatrykPatryk
3,735134253
add a comment |
I would like to remove all files in the lib directory with .swp in the end.
How can I do this without find in:
rm `find lib/ -name *.swp`
find wildcards rm
edited Feb 10 at 19:04
Rui F Ribeiro
40.5k1479137
asked Jan 21 '13 at 22:04
PatrykPatryk
3,735134253
Why do you wish to remove 'find', academic reason or something more precise?
– bbaja42
Jan 21 '13 at 22:08
I'm just curious how this can be done in other way.
– Patryk
Jan 21 '13 at 22:12
If you have Perl installed you can use find2perl to generate an equivalent script, which you can customise as needed.
– pgs
Jan 22 '13 at 0:55
add a comment |
I would like to remove all files in the lib directory with .swp in the end.
How can I do this without find in:
rm `find lib/ -name *.swp`
find wildcards rm
edited Feb 10 at 19:04
Rui F Ribeiro
40.5k1479137
asked Jan 21 '13 at 22:04
PatrykPatryk
3,735134253
I would like to remove all files in the lib directory with .swp in the end.
How can I do this without find in:
rm `find lib/ -name *.swp`
find wildcards rm
find wildcards rm
edited Feb 10 at 19:04
Rui F Ribeiro
40.5k1479137
asked Jan 21 '13 at 22:04
PatrykPatryk
3,735134253
edited Feb 10 at 19:04
Rui F Ribeiro
40.5k1479137
asked Jan 21 '13 at 22:04
PatrykPatryk
3,735134253
edited Feb 10 at 19:04
Rui F Ribeiro
40.5k1479137
edited Feb 10 at 19:04
Rui F Ribeiro
40.5k1479137
edited Feb 10 at 19:04
Rui F Ribeiro
40.5k1479137
40.5k1479137
asked Jan 21 '13 at 22:04
PatrykPatryk
3,735134253
asked Jan 21 '13 at 22:04
PatrykPatryk
3,735134253
asked Jan 21 '13 at 22:04
PatrykPatryk
3,735134253
3,735134253
Why do you wish to remove 'find', academic reason or something more precise?
– bbaja42
Jan 21 '13 at 22:08
I'm just curious how this can be done in other way.
– Patryk
Jan 21 '13 at 22:12
If you have Perl installed you can use find2perl to generate an equivalent script, which you can customise as needed.
– pgs
Jan 22 '13 at 0:55
add a comment |
Why do you wish to remove 'find', academic reason or something more precise?
– bbaja42
Jan 21 '13 at 22:08
I'm just curious how this can be done in other way.
– Patryk
Jan 21 '13 at 22:12
If you have Perl installed you can use find2perl to generate an equivalent script, which you can customise as needed.
– pgs
Jan 22 '13 at 0:55
Why do you wish to remove 'find', academic reason or something more precise?
– bbaja42
Jan 21 '13 at 22:08
Why do you wish to remove 'find', academic reason or something more precise?
– bbaja42
Jan 21 '13 at 22:08
I'm just curious how this can be done in other way.
– Patryk
Jan 21 '13 at 22:12
I'm just curious how this can be done in other way.
– Patryk
Jan 21 '13 at 22:12
If you have Perl installed you can use find2perl to generate an equivalent script, which you can customise as needed.
– pgs
Jan 22 '13 at 0:55
If you have Perl installed you can use find2perl to generate an equivalent script, which you can customise as needed.
– pgs
Jan 22 '13 at 0:55
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The benefit to find is that it is recursive. Some modern shells offer search recursion, but it is not in the POSIX standard, so you can not rely on them to work everywhere. Here is an example that works in bash 4.0 and higher.
shopt -s globstar
for f in **/*.swp; do
rm -- "$f"
done
As far as the find command that you already have, it will break on any files that contain whitespace such as spaces. Here is a fixed example:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
With some versions of find, you can use -delete:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -delete
edited Jan 22 '13 at 7:18
Stéphane Chazelas
307k57581936
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:39
jordanmjordanm
30.8k38695
Note that thatforloop above would rather be equivalent tofind -L . -name '.*' ! -name . -prune -o -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
– Stéphane Chazelas
Jan 28 '13 at 23:44
add a comment |
cd lib && ls -R | grep '.swp$' | xargs -d 'n' rm
As for your original, I'd have done it:
find lib -name '*.swp' | xargs -d 'n' rm
because if find returns no results you won't get an error.
You might also want to use ! -type d so find doesn't return any directories which happen to be called *.swp, because rm would fail to remove them. You could do something similar with my alternative using ls -RF because directories would get a trailing / so not match the regex.
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:26
Jonathan WakelyJonathan Wakely
1114
Both examples break on files with spaces.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:34
Does piping to xargs provide a benefit over -delete or even -exec rm {} ?
– user17591
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
fixed by setting newline as the delimiter
– Jonathan Wakely
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
1
@user17591 - it has a benefits over-exec rm {} ;because it will executermone time, rather than once for each file. This benefit does not carry over to-exec rm {} +. The latter is almost always what you want.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:42
1
So will using+as a terminator instead of;to-exec(POSIX, should work everywhere).
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:43
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62075%2fwhat-is-an-equivalent-of-rm-find-lib-name-swp-without-find%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The benefit to find is that it is recursive. Some modern shells offer search recursion, but it is not in the POSIX standard, so you can not rely on them to work everywhere. Here is an example that works in bash 4.0 and higher.
shopt -s globstar
for f in **/*.swp; do
rm -- "$f"
done
As far as the find command that you already have, it will break on any files that contain whitespace such as spaces. Here is a fixed example:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
With some versions of find, you can use -delete:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -delete
edited Jan 22 '13 at 7:18
Stéphane Chazelas
307k57581936
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:39
jordanmjordanm
30.8k38695
Note that thatforloop above would rather be equivalent tofind -L . -name '.*' ! -name . -prune -o -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
– Stéphane Chazelas
Jan 28 '13 at 23:44
add a comment |
The benefit to find is that it is recursive. Some modern shells offer search recursion, but it is not in the POSIX standard, so you can not rely on them to work everywhere. Here is an example that works in bash 4.0 and higher.
shopt -s globstar
for f in **/*.swp; do
rm -- "$f"
done
As far as the find command that you already have, it will break on any files that contain whitespace such as spaces. Here is a fixed example:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
With some versions of find, you can use -delete:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -delete
edited Jan 22 '13 at 7:18
Stéphane Chazelas
307k57581936
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:39
jordanmjordanm
30.8k38695
Note that thatforloop above would rather be equivalent tofind -L . -name '.*' ! -name . -prune -o -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
– Stéphane Chazelas
Jan 28 '13 at 23:44
add a comment |
The benefit to find is that it is recursive. Some modern shells offer search recursion, but it is not in the POSIX standard, so you can not rely on them to work everywhere. Here is an example that works in bash 4.0 and higher.
shopt -s globstar
for f in **/*.swp; do
rm -- "$f"
done
As far as the find command that you already have, it will break on any files that contain whitespace such as spaces. Here is a fixed example:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
With some versions of find, you can use -delete:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -delete
edited Jan 22 '13 at 7:18
Stéphane Chazelas
307k57581936
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:39
jordanmjordanm
30.8k38695
The benefit to find is that it is recursive. Some modern shells offer search recursion, but it is not in the POSIX standard, so you can not rely on them to work everywhere. Here is an example that works in bash 4.0 and higher.
shopt -s globstar
for f in **/*.swp; do
rm -- "$f"
done
As far as the find command that you already have, it will break on any files that contain whitespace such as spaces. Here is a fixed example:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
With some versions of find, you can use -delete:
find lib/ -name '*.swp' -delete
edited Jan 22 '13 at 7:18
Stéphane Chazelas
307k57581936
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:39
jordanmjordanm
30.8k38695
edited Jan 22 '13 at 7:18
Stéphane Chazelas
307k57581936
edited Jan 22 '13 at 7:18
Stéphane Chazelas
307k57581936
edited Jan 22 '13 at 7:18
Stéphane Chazelas
307k57581936
307k57581936
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:39
jordanmjordanm
30.8k38695
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:39
jordanmjordanm
30.8k38695
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:39
jordanmjordanm
30.8k38695
30.8k38695
Note that thatforloop above would rather be equivalent tofind -L . -name '.*' ! -name . -prune -o -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
– Stéphane Chazelas
Jan 28 '13 at 23:44
add a comment |
Note that thatforloop above would rather be equivalent tofind -L . -name '.*' ! -name . -prune -o -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +
– Stéphane Chazelas
Jan 28 '13 at 23:44
Note that that
for loop above would rather be equivalent to find -L . -name '.*' ! -name . -prune -o -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +– Stéphane Chazelas
Jan 28 '13 at 23:44
Note that that
for loop above would rather be equivalent to find -L . -name '.*' ! -name . -prune -o -name '*.swp' -exec rm {} +– Stéphane Chazelas
Jan 28 '13 at 23:44
add a comment |
cd lib && ls -R | grep '.swp$' | xargs -d 'n' rm
As for your original, I'd have done it:
find lib -name '*.swp' | xargs -d 'n' rm
because if find returns no results you won't get an error.
You might also want to use ! -type d so find doesn't return any directories which happen to be called *.swp, because rm would fail to remove them. You could do something similar with my alternative using ls -RF because directories would get a trailing / so not match the regex.
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:26
Jonathan WakelyJonathan Wakely
1114
Both examples break on files with spaces.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:34
Does piping to xargs provide a benefit over -delete or even -exec rm {} ?
– user17591
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
fixed by setting newline as the delimiter
– Jonathan Wakely
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
1
@user17591 - it has a benefits over-exec rm {} ;because it will executermone time, rather than once for each file. This benefit does not carry over to-exec rm {} +. The latter is almost always what you want.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:42
1
So will using+as a terminator instead of;to-exec(POSIX, should work everywhere).
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:43
|
show 4 more comments
cd lib && ls -R | grep '.swp$' | xargs -d 'n' rm
As for your original, I'd have done it:
find lib -name '*.swp' | xargs -d 'n' rm
because if find returns no results you won't get an error.
You might also want to use ! -type d so find doesn't return any directories which happen to be called *.swp, because rm would fail to remove them. You could do something similar with my alternative using ls -RF because directories would get a trailing / so not match the regex.
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:26
Jonathan WakelyJonathan Wakely
1114
Both examples break on files with spaces.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:34
Does piping to xargs provide a benefit over -delete or even -exec rm {} ?
– user17591
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
fixed by setting newline as the delimiter
– Jonathan Wakely
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
1
@user17591 - it has a benefits over-exec rm {} ;because it will executermone time, rather than once for each file. This benefit does not carry over to-exec rm {} +. The latter is almost always what you want.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:42
1
So will using+as a terminator instead of;to-exec(POSIX, should work everywhere).
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:43
|
show 4 more comments
cd lib && ls -R | grep '.swp$' | xargs -d 'n' rm
As for your original, I'd have done it:
find lib -name '*.swp' | xargs -d 'n' rm
because if find returns no results you won't get an error.
You might also want to use ! -type d so find doesn't return any directories which happen to be called *.swp, because rm would fail to remove them. You could do something similar with my alternative using ls -RF because directories would get a trailing / so not match the regex.
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:26
Jonathan WakelyJonathan Wakely
1114
cd lib && ls -R | grep '.swp$' | xargs -d 'n' rm
As for your original, I'd have done it:
find lib -name '*.swp' | xargs -d 'n' rm
because if find returns no results you won't get an error.
You might also want to use ! -type d so find doesn't return any directories which happen to be called *.swp, because rm would fail to remove them. You could do something similar with my alternative using ls -RF because directories would get a trailing / so not match the regex.
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:26
Jonathan WakelyJonathan Wakely
1114
edited Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:26
Jonathan WakelyJonathan Wakely
1114
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:26
Jonathan WakelyJonathan Wakely
1114
answered Jan 21 '13 at 22:26
Jonathan WakelyJonathan Wakely
1114
1114
Both examples break on files with spaces.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:34
Does piping to xargs provide a benefit over -delete or even -exec rm {} ?
– user17591
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
fixed by setting newline as the delimiter
– Jonathan Wakely
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
1
@user17591 - it has a benefits over-exec rm {} ;because it will executermone time, rather than once for each file. This benefit does not carry over to-exec rm {} +. The latter is almost always what you want.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:42
1
So will using+as a terminator instead of;to-exec(POSIX, should work everywhere).
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:43
|
show 4 more comments
Both examples break on files with spaces.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:34
Does piping to xargs provide a benefit over -delete or even -exec rm {} ?
– user17591
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
fixed by setting newline as the delimiter
– Jonathan Wakely
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
1
@user17591 - it has a benefits over-exec rm {} ;because it will executermone time, rather than once for each file. This benefit does not carry over to-exec rm {} +. The latter is almost always what you want.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:42
1
So will using+as a terminator instead of;to-exec(POSIX, should work everywhere).
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:43
Both examples break on files with spaces.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:34
Both examples break on files with spaces.
– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:34
Does piping to xargs provide a benefit over -delete or even -exec rm {} ?
– user17591
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
Does piping to xargs provide a benefit over -delete or even -exec rm {} ?
– user17591
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
fixed by setting newline as the delimiter
– Jonathan Wakely
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
fixed by setting newline as the delimiter
– Jonathan Wakely
Jan 21 '13 at 22:41
1
1
@user17591 - it has a benefits over
-exec rm {} ; because it will execute rm one time, rather than once for each file. This benefit does not carry over to -exec rm {} +. The latter is almost always what you want.– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:42
@user17591 - it has a benefits over
-exec rm {} ; because it will execute rm one time, rather than once for each file. This benefit does not carry over to -exec rm {} +. The latter is almost always what you want.– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:42
1
1
So will using
+ as a terminator instead of ; to -exec (POSIX, should work everywhere).– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:43
So will using
+ as a terminator instead of ; to -exec (POSIX, should work everywhere).– jordanm
Jan 21 '13 at 22:43
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62075%2fwhat-is-an-equivalent-of-rm-find-lib-name-swp-without-find%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Why do you wish to remove 'find', academic reason or something more precise?
– bbaja42
Jan 21 '13 at 22:08
I'm just curious how this can be done in other way.
– Patryk
Jan 21 '13 at 22:12
If you have Perl installed you can use find2perl to generate an equivalent script, which you can customise as needed.
– pgs
Jan 22 '13 at 0:55