Hello,

Is there any easy way to move or copy files *only* if a certain bit
(execute bit, in my case) is set?  Basically "mv [all files with execute
bit set] /tmp".

I'm sure I could whip something up in C to read the permissions and then
move them.  But I'm guessing that there must be a quick and simple way
to do this in a shell script.

I've done a Google search, but it's kind of a hard topic to search on,
so I haven't come up with anything useful.

Thank you in advance,

--
Sean

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:01:36 -0500, Fao, Sean wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there any easy way to move or copy files *only* if a certain bit
> (execute bit, in my case) is set?  Basically "mv [all files with execu
te
> bit set] /tmp".
>
> I'm sure I could whip something up in C to read the permissions and then
> move them.  But I'm guessing that there must be a quick and simple way
> to do this in a shell script.


man find

> I've done a Google search, but it's kind of a hard topic to search on,
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
find perm mv                  in the first box and
asterisk linux asterisk       in the Newsgroup box aught to do it.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2005-11-02, Fao, Sean <enceladus311@yahoo.comI-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there any easy way to move or copy files *only* if a certain bit
> (execute bit, in my case) is set?  Basically "mv [all files with execu
te
> bit set] /tmp".

find(1) is your friend.

heh - sorry, couldn't say that with a straight face. but still, probably the
best way to do this without hand-coding something in C is to use find.

#find  regular files   with any execute bit set   and move to /tmp
find         -type f                -mode +0111   -exec mv {} /tmp \;

You should probably check the manpage - in particular, it can be done more
efficiently with + instead of \; on some systems, but not all, and particula
rly
not gnu. Also check xargs(1).

> I'm sure I could whip something up in C to read the permissions and then
> move them.  But I'm guessing that there must be a quick and simple way
> to do this in a shell script.
>
> I've done a Google search, but it's kind of a hard topic to search on,
> so I haven't come up with anything useful.
>
> Thank you in advance,
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Fao, Sean wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there any easy way to move or copy files *only* if a certain bit
> (execute bit, in my case) is set?  Basically "mv [all files with execu
te
> bit set] /tmp".

Erg...I feel like such an idiot!  I've used find in the way you both
suggested and I knew exactly how to do it, but I was being stupid.  Oh
well...

Thank you both very much for your help.  I'll attempt to not be such a
dummy in the future!

--
Sean

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkVEIE1FU1NBR0Ut
LS0tLQ0KSGFzaDogU0hBMQ0KDQpKb3JkYW4g
 QWJlbCA8am1hYmVsQHB1cmR1ZS5lZHU+ICgwNS0x
MS0wMiAxOToyMDo1NCk6DQoNCj4gI2ZpbmQg
 IHJlZ3VsYXIgZmlsZXMgICB3aXRoIGFueSBleGVj
dXRlIGJpdCBzZXQgICBhbmQgbW92ZSB0byAv
 dG1wDQo+IGZpbmQgICAgICAgICAtdHlwZSBmICAg
ICAgICAgICAgICAgIC1tb2RlICswMTExICAg
 LWV4ZWMgbXYge30gL3RtcCBcOw0KDQoNCkV2ZW4g
ZWFzaWVyIHZlcnNpb246DQoNCiAgY3AgJChm
 aW5kIC10eXBlIGYgLW1vZGUgLi4uKSBERVNUSU5B
VElPTg0KICBtdiAkKGZpbmQgLXR5cGUgZiAt
 bW9kZSAuLi4pIERFU1RJTkFUSU9ODQoNCkFzIGFs
cmVhZHkgc2FpZCwgY2hlY2sgb3V0IHRoZSBt
 YW5wYWdlIGZvciBob3cgdG8gdXNlIHRoZSAtbW9k
ZSBvcHRpb24uDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMuDQoNCg0K
 LSAtLSANCihoa3ApIHN1YmtleXMucGhwLm5ldCAo
bGRhcCkga2V5c2VydmVyLnBncC5jb20gKGh0
 dHApIHd3dy5rZXlzZXJ2ZXIuZGUNCklEOiBDRTQw
MjAxMiAoMEYxMiAwOTEyIERGQzggMkZDNSBF
 MkI4ICBBMjNFIDZCQUMgOTk4RSBDRTQwIDIwMTIp
DQoNCi0tLS0tQkVHSU4gUEdQIFNJR05BVFVS
 RS0tLS0tDQpWZXJzaW9uOiBHbnVQRyB2MS40LjEg
KEdOVS9MaW51eCkNCg0KaUQ4REJRRkRhVXFI
 YTZ5WmpzNUFJQklSQXFPQUFLQ2hMVzFTcHRBY0JY
dm4zeGczVXMwNFdkam95d0NhQXQxYw0KQU1R
 MGM0SWdjOTI2SXJLN2pDL0xuTjg9DQo9WldMRw0K
LS0tLS1FTkQgUEdQIFNJR05BVFVSRS0tLS0t
DQo=

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2005-11-02, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote:
>
> Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu> (05-11-02 19:20:54):
> 
>
>
> Even easier version:
>
>   cp $(find -type f -mode ...) DESTINATION
>   mv $(find -type f -mode ...) DESTINATION

Both of which will fail if any filenames contain spaces.

> As already said, check out the manpage for how to use the -mode option.

The -mode option is non-standard.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson                   | Author:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org>          |      Shell Scripting Recipes:
Any code in this post is released    |  A Problem-Solution Approach,
under the GNU General Public Licence |                 2005, Apress

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> (05-11-02 23:54:05):

> On 2005-11-02, Ertugrul Soeylemez wrote: 
>
>     Both of which will fail if any filenames contain spaces.


The former version would fail as well.  You have to enclose '{}' in
quotes.  At least this version is much faster, because it doesn't call
cp/mv 100 times for 100 files.

 
>
>     The -mode option is non-standard.


I don't even have that option.  I'd have used -perm, if I had to do it
with 'find'.

That's why I love zsh.  In zsh I'd have done that via normal filename
generation, which also doesn't suffer from the delimiting problem:

# zsh-only: copy all owner-executable files in current directory and
# all subdirectories

cp **/*(#q.*) DESTINATION

Regards.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2005-11-03, Ertugrul Soeylemez <never@drwxr-xr-x.org> wrote:
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> (05-11-02 23:54:05):
> 
>
>
> The former version would fail as well.  You have to enclose '{}' in
> quotes.  At least this version is much faster, because it doesn't call
> cp/mv 100 times for 100 files.

Why do you need to enclose {} in quotes? find doesn't run its -exec arg
uments
through a shell.

To get even more non-standard, you could -exec mv {} /tmp +

the real "portable" solution is -print0 and xargs

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Jordan Abel wrote:
> To get even more non-standard, you could -exec mv {} /tmp +

Assuming you refer to the "+" above, it absolutely is standard. It's a
relatively recent addition to SUS and one could argue that it's not
sufficiently portable for that reason. But it *is* standard.

HT

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2005-11-03, Jordan Abel wrote:
> On 2005-11-03, Ertugrul Soeylemez <never@drwxr-xr-x.org> wrote: 
>
> Why do you need to enclose {} in quotes? find doesn't run its -exec a
rguments
> through a shell.
>
> To get even more non-standard, you could -exec mv {} /tmp +

That IS standard, but not portable; some unices have included it
for a while. GNU has included it recently.

> the real "portable" solution is -print0 and xargs

That is neither standard nor portable.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson                   | Author:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org>          |      Shell Scripting Recipes:
Any code in this post is released    |  A Problem-Solution Approach,
under the GNU General Public Licence |                 2005, Apress

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]