xargs: 'ls' terminated by signal 13 [duplicate]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
limit find output AND avoid signal 13
3 answers
find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 ls -ltr | head -n 10 | awk 'print
$NF' | xargs rm
This command is giving me this:
xargs: 'ls' terminated by signal 13
However, it's executing fine. It's supposed to delete the 10 oldest files on the specific folder. Is there something to worry about? Is there a fix?
Server is running BuildRoot.
find ls xargs
edited Sep 15 at 15:59
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
asked Sep 10 at 19:25
André LuÃs
284
marked as duplicate by Rui F Ribeiro, DarkHeart, RalfFriedl, Archemar, Kiwy Sep 11 at 8:45
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
limit find output AND avoid signal 13
3 answers
find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 ls -ltr | head -n 10 | awk 'print
$NF' | xargs rm
This command is giving me this:
xargs: 'ls' terminated by signal 13
However, it's executing fine. It's supposed to delete the 10 oldest files on the specific folder. Is there something to worry about? Is there a fix?
Server is running BuildRoot.
find ls xargs
edited Sep 15 at 15:59
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
asked Sep 10 at 19:25
André LuÃs
284
marked as duplicate by Rui F Ribeiro, DarkHeart, RalfFriedl, Archemar, Kiwy Sep 11 at 8:45
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
A better way to sort files, especially lots of files - so many that xargs would issue multiple invocations oflsand you wouldn't get a total sort - can be found at unix.stackexchange.com/questions/22674/…
– Mark Plotnick
Sep 10 at 19:35
Signal numbers other then 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are not portable. You need to explain what signal 13 is on your local machine.
– schily
Sep 10 at 20:55
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
limit find output AND avoid signal 13
3 answers
find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 ls -ltr | head -n 10 | awk 'print
$NF' | xargs rm
This command is giving me this:
xargs: 'ls' terminated by signal 13
However, it's executing fine. It's supposed to delete the 10 oldest files on the specific folder. Is there something to worry about? Is there a fix?
Server is running BuildRoot.
find ls xargs
edited Sep 15 at 15:59
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
asked Sep 10 at 19:25
André LuÃs
284
This question already has an answer here:
limit find output AND avoid signal 13
3 answers
find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 ls -ltr | head -n 10 | awk 'print
$NF' | xargs rm
This command is giving me this:
xargs: 'ls' terminated by signal 13
However, it's executing fine. It's supposed to delete the 10 oldest files on the specific folder. Is there something to worry about? Is there a fix?
Server is running BuildRoot.
This question already has an answer here:
limit find output AND avoid signal 13
3 answers
find ls xargs
find ls xargs
edited Sep 15 at 15:59
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
asked Sep 10 at 19:25
André LuÃs
284
edited Sep 15 at 15:59
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
asked Sep 10 at 19:25
André LuÃs
284
edited Sep 15 at 15:59
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
edited Sep 15 at 15:59
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
edited Sep 15 at 15:59
Rui F Ribeiro
36.8k1273117
36.8k1273117
asked Sep 10 at 19:25
André LuÃs
284
asked Sep 10 at 19:25
André LuÃs
284
asked Sep 10 at 19:25
André LuÃs
284
284
marked as duplicate by Rui F Ribeiro, DarkHeart, RalfFriedl, Archemar, Kiwy Sep 11 at 8:45
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Rui F Ribeiro, DarkHeart, RalfFriedl, Archemar, Kiwy Sep 11 at 8:45
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
A better way to sort files, especially lots of files - so many that xargs would issue multiple invocations oflsand you wouldn't get a total sort - can be found at unix.stackexchange.com/questions/22674/…
– Mark Plotnick
Sep 10 at 19:35
Signal numbers other then 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are not portable. You need to explain what signal 13 is on your local machine.
– schily
Sep 10 at 20:55
add a comment |Â
A better way to sort files, especially lots of files - so many that xargs would issue multiple invocations oflsand you wouldn't get a total sort - can be found at unix.stackexchange.com/questions/22674/…
– Mark Plotnick
Sep 10 at 19:35
Signal numbers other then 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are not portable. You need to explain what signal 13 is on your local machine.
– schily
Sep 10 at 20:55
A better way to sort files, especially lots of files - so many that xargs would issue multiple invocations of
ls and you wouldn't get a total sort - can be found at unix.stackexchange.com/questions/22674/…– Mark Plotnick
Sep 10 at 19:35
A better way to sort files, especially lots of files - so many that xargs would issue multiple invocations of
ls and you wouldn't get a total sort - can be found at unix.stackexchange.com/questions/22674/…– Mark Plotnick
Sep 10 at 19:35
Signal numbers other then 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are not portable. You need to explain what signal 13 is on your local machine.
– schily
Sep 10 at 20:55
Signal numbers other then 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are not portable. You need to explain what signal 13 is on your local machine.
– schily
Sep 10 at 20:55
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
I believe the issue is with the head command and the pipe. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27800726/ls-terminated-by-signal-13-when-using-xargs for more information.
Hope this helps
answered Sep 10 at 19:33
Lewis M
3813
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
I believe the issue is with the head command and the pipe. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27800726/ls-terminated-by-signal-13-when-using-xargs for more information.
Hope this helps
answered Sep 10 at 19:33
Lewis M
3813
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I believe the issue is with the head command and the pipe. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27800726/ls-terminated-by-signal-13-when-using-xargs for more information.
Hope this helps
answered Sep 10 at 19:33
Lewis M
3813
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I believe the issue is with the head command and the pipe. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27800726/ls-terminated-by-signal-13-when-using-xargs for more information.
Hope this helps
answered Sep 10 at 19:33
Lewis M
3813
I believe the issue is with the head command and the pipe. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27800726/ls-terminated-by-signal-13-when-using-xargs for more information.
Hope this helps
answered Sep 10 at 19:33
Lewis M
3813
answered Sep 10 at 19:33
Lewis M
3813
answered Sep 10 at 19:33
Lewis M
3813
answered Sep 10 at 19:33
Lewis M
3813
3813
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
A better way to sort files, especially lots of files - so many that xargs would issue multiple invocations of
lsand you wouldn't get a total sort - can be found at unix.stackexchange.com/questions/22674/…– Mark Plotnick
Sep 10 at 19:35
Signal numbers other then 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are not portable. You need to explain what signal 13 is on your local machine.
– schily
Sep 10 at 20:55