xargs plus shell string manipulation vs sed [duplicate]

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
0
down vote

favorite

This question already has an answer here:

recursive statistics on file types in directory?

4 answers

I am trying to summarise the file extensions in a directory recursively.

find .| xargs -d "n" -I@ echo "$@##.*" | sort |uniq -c

But this is giving me a series of blank lines. Not what I wanted.

I am aware of:

find . -type f | sed 's/.*.//' | sort | uniq -c from a similar question, but am curious about why my formulation doesn't work.

edited 50 mins ago

asked yesterday

Tim

1535

marked as duplicate by don_crissti, Goro, Jeff Schaller, KusalanandaÂ shell
Users with the Â shell badge can single-handedly close shell questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
yesterday

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.

What are you trying to accomplish : are you trying to summarize file types based on mime types or based on extensions (these are two different things) ?
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Goro for a medium-sized directory I receive -bash: /usr/bin/file: Argument list too long
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

@don_crissti I'd like to know how to use both methods. I realise there are differences, and prefer the mime types. If the file command is taking too long, I'd revert to extension-based type.
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

... if you want the mime types then find . -type f -exec file --brief --mime-type ; | sort | uniq -c should do. Your code also works if you use a for loop, e.g. for f in **/*; do...
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Tim what is the objective of the process, I mean what you would like to achieve by the end, more specifically why you are using cut sort and uniq? The commands seems to be meaningless in providing correct output for cut and sort. If you would please provide example of the desired output this will be very helpful for us to help
â€“Â Goro
yesterday

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

up vote
0
down vote

favorite

This question already has an answer here:

recursive statistics on file types in directory?

4 answers

I am trying to summarise the file extensions in a directory recursively.

find .| xargs -d "n" -I@ echo "$@##.*" | sort |uniq -c

But this is giving me a series of blank lines. Not what I wanted.

I am aware of:

find . -type f | sed 's/.*.//' | sort | uniq -c from a similar question, but am curious about why my formulation doesn't work.

edited 50 mins ago

asked yesterday

Tim

1535

marked as duplicate by don_crissti, Goro, Jeff Schaller, KusalanandaÂ shell
Users with the Â shell badge can single-handedly close shell questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
yesterday

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.

What are you trying to accomplish : are you trying to summarize file types based on mime types or based on extensions (these are two different things) ?
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Goro for a medium-sized directory I receive -bash: /usr/bin/file: Argument list too long
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

@don_crissti I'd like to know how to use both methods. I realise there are differences, and prefer the mime types. If the file command is taking too long, I'd revert to extension-based type.
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

... if you want the mime types then find . -type f -exec file --brief --mime-type ; | sort | uniq -c should do. Your code also works if you use a for loop, e.g. for f in **/*; do...
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Tim what is the objective of the process, I mean what you would like to achieve by the end, more specifically why you are using cut sort and uniq? The commands seems to be meaningless in providing correct output for cut and sort. If you would please provide example of the desired output this will be very helpful for us to help
â€“Â Goro
yesterday

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

up vote
0
down vote

favorite

This question already has an answer here:

recursive statistics on file types in directory?

4 answers

I am trying to summarise the file extensions in a directory recursively.

find .| xargs -d "n" -I@ echo "$@##.*" | sort |uniq -c

But this is giving me a series of blank lines. Not what I wanted.

I am aware of:

find . -type f | sed 's/.*.//' | sort | uniq -c from a similar question, but am curious about why my formulation doesn't work.

edited 50 mins ago

asked yesterday

Tim

1535

This question already has an answer here:

recursive statistics on file types in directory?

4 answers

I am trying to summarise the file extensions in a directory recursively.

find .| xargs -d "n" -I@ echo "$@##.*" | sort |uniq -c

But this is giving me a series of blank lines. Not what I wanted.

I am aware of:

find . -type f | sed 's/.*.//' | sort | uniq -c from a similar question, but am curious about why my formulation doesn't work.

This question already has an answer here:

recursive statistics on file types in directory?

4 answers

shell sed xargs

edited 50 mins ago

asked yesterday

Tim

1535

edited 50 mins ago

asked yesterday

Tim

1535

edited 50 mins ago

asked yesterday

Tim

1535

asked yesterday

Tim

1535

asked yesterday

Tim

1535

marked as duplicate by don_crissti, Goro, Jeff Schaller, KusalanandaÂ shell
Users with the Â shell badge can single-handedly close shell questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
yesterday

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 don_crissti, Goro, Jeff Schaller, KusalanandaÂ shell
Users with the Â shell badge can single-handedly close shell questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
yesterday

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.

What are you trying to accomplish : are you trying to summarize file types based on mime types or based on extensions (these are two different things) ?
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Goro for a medium-sized directory I receive -bash: /usr/bin/file: Argument list too long
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

@don_crissti I'd like to know how to use both methods. I realise there are differences, and prefer the mime types. If the file command is taking too long, I'd revert to extension-based type.
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

... if you want the mime types then find . -type f -exec file --brief --mime-type ; | sort | uniq -c should do. Your code also works if you use a for loop, e.g. for f in **/*; do...
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Tim what is the objective of the process, I mean what you would like to achieve by the end, more specifically why you are using cut sort and uniq? The commands seems to be meaningless in providing correct output for cut and sort. If you would please provide example of the desired output this will be very helpful for us to help
â€“Â Goro
yesterday

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

What are you trying to accomplish : are you trying to summarize file types based on mime types or based on extensions (these are two different things) ?
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Goro for a medium-sized directory I receive -bash: /usr/bin/file: Argument list too long
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

@don_crissti I'd like to know how to use both methods. I realise there are differences, and prefer the mime types. If the file command is taking too long, I'd revert to extension-based type.
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

... if you want the mime types then find . -type f -exec file --brief --mime-type ; | sort | uniq -c should do. Your code also works if you use a for loop, e.g. for f in **/*; do...
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Tim what is the objective of the process, I mean what you would like to achieve by the end, more specifically why you are using cut sort and uniq? The commands seems to be meaningless in providing correct output for cut and sort. If you would please provide example of the desired output this will be very helpful for us to help
â€“Â Goro
yesterday

What are you trying to accomplish : are you trying to summarize file types based on mime types or based on extensions (these are two different things) ?
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Goro for a medium-sized directory I receive -bash: /usr/bin/file: Argument list too long
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

@don_crissti I'd like to know how to use both methods. I realise there are differences, and prefer the mime types. If the file command is taking too long, I'd revert to extension-based type.
â€“Â Tim
yesterday

... if you want the mime types then find . -type f -exec file --brief --mime-type ; | sort | uniq -c should do. Your code also works if you use a for loop, e.g. for f in **/*; do...
â€“Â don_crissti
yesterday

@Tim what is the objective of the process, I mean what you would like to achieve by the end, more specifically why you are using cut sort and uniq? The commands seems to be meaningless in providing correct output for cut and sort. If you would please provide example of the desired output this will be very helpful for us to help
â€“Â Goro
yesterday

Â |Â
show 1 more comment

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
2
down vote

You can get find to execute file for each file found.

find . -exec file -b ; |cut -f1|sort|uniq -c

edit

As @Ed-Nevile's comment below removing cut provides more detail for ASCII files.

find . -exec file -b ; |sort|uniq -c

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

X Tian

7,41611936

1

Upvoting as you use -b, but I don't think you should cut the output since several different file types will begin with 'ASCII'.
â€“Â Ed Neville
yesterday

I think -exec file -b + will reduce the number of file processes created.
â€“Â Kamil Maciorowski
yesterday

Certainly will, great update, tks, I wanted to answer his original question as close as possible :-)
â€“Â X Tian
yesterday

1. Can you please say why exec is preferred here over xargs? and 2. Can you tell me what is wrong syntactically with my attempts using bash string manipulation? I am trying not just to achieve a result, but also to understand why other methods don't work.
â€“Â Tim
21 hours ago

add a commentÂ |Â

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
2
down vote

You can get find to execute file for each file found.

find . -exec file -b ; |cut -f1|sort|uniq -c

edit

As @Ed-Nevile's comment below removing cut provides more detail for ASCII files.

find . -exec file -b ; |sort|uniq -c

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

X Tian

7,41611936

1

Upvoting as you use -b, but I don't think you should cut the output since several different file types will begin with 'ASCII'.
â€“Â Ed Neville
yesterday

I think -exec file -b + will reduce the number of file processes created.
â€“Â Kamil Maciorowski
yesterday

Certainly will, great update, tks, I wanted to answer his original question as close as possible :-)
â€“Â X Tian
yesterday

1. Can you please say why exec is preferred here over xargs? and 2. Can you tell me what is wrong syntactically with my attempts using bash string manipulation? I am trying not just to achieve a result, but also to understand why other methods don't work.
â€“Â Tim
21 hours ago

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
2
down vote

You can get find to execute file for each file found.

find . -exec file -b ; |cut -f1|sort|uniq -c

edit

As @Ed-Nevile's comment below removing cut provides more detail for ASCII files.

find . -exec file -b ; |sort|uniq -c

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

X Tian

7,41611936

1

Upvoting as you use -b, but I don't think you should cut the output since several different file types will begin with 'ASCII'.
â€“Â Ed Neville
yesterday

I think -exec file -b + will reduce the number of file processes created.
â€“Â Kamil Maciorowski
yesterday

Certainly will, great update, tks, I wanted to answer his original question as close as possible :-)
â€“Â X Tian
yesterday

1. Can you please say why exec is preferred here over xargs? and 2. Can you tell me what is wrong syntactically with my attempts using bash string manipulation? I am trying not just to achieve a result, but also to understand why other methods don't work.
â€“Â Tim
21 hours ago

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
2
down vote

You can get find to execute file for each file found.

find . -exec file -b ; |cut -f1|sort|uniq -c

edit

As @Ed-Nevile's comment below removing cut provides more detail for ASCII files.

find . -exec file -b ; |sort|uniq -c

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

X Tian

7,41611936

You can get find to execute file for each file found.

find . -exec file -b ; |cut -f1|sort|uniq -c

edit

As @Ed-Nevile's comment below removing cut provides more detail for ASCII files.

find . -exec file -b ; |sort|uniq -c

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

X Tian

7,41611936

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

X Tian

7,41611936

answered yesterday

X Tian

7,41611936

answered yesterday

X Tian

7,41611936

1

Upvoting as you use -b, but I don't think you should cut the output since several different file types will begin with 'ASCII'.
â€“Â Ed Neville
yesterday

I think -exec file -b + will reduce the number of file processes created.
â€“Â Kamil Maciorowski
yesterday

Certainly will, great update, tks, I wanted to answer his original question as close as possible :-)
â€“Â X Tian
yesterday

1. Can you please say why exec is preferred here over xargs? and 2. Can you tell me what is wrong syntactically with my attempts using bash string manipulation? I am trying not just to achieve a result, but also to understand why other methods don't work.
â€“Â Tim
21 hours ago

add a commentÂ |Â

1

Upvoting as you use -b, but I don't think you should cut the output since several different file types will begin with 'ASCII'.
â€“Â Ed Neville
yesterday

I think -exec file -b + will reduce the number of file processes created.
â€“Â Kamil Maciorowski
yesterday

Certainly will, great update, tks, I wanted to answer his original question as close as possible :-)
â€“Â X Tian
yesterday

1. Can you please say why exec is preferred here over xargs? and 2. Can you tell me what is wrong syntactically with my attempts using bash string manipulation? I am trying not just to achieve a result, but also to understand why other methods don't work.
â€“Â Tim
21 hours ago

Upvoting as you use -b, but I don't think you should cut the output since several different file types will begin with 'ASCII'.
â€“Â Ed Neville
yesterday

I think -exec file -b + will reduce the number of file processes created.
â€“Â Kamil Maciorowski
yesterday

Certainly will, great update, tks, I wanted to answer his original question as close as possible :-)
â€“Â X Tian
yesterday

1. Can you please say why exec is preferred here over xargs? and 2. Can you tell me what is wrong syntactically with my attempts using bash string manipulation? I am trying not just to achieve a result, but also to understand why other methods don't work.
â€“Â Tim
21 hours ago

add a commentÂ |Â

搜尋此網誌

mjhjmtu