Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 09:33:40 -0600
- From: Richard Owlett <rowlett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Taming the "lsblk" command
On 01/09/2019 08:14 AM, David Wright wrote:
On Wed 09 Jan 2019 at 13:54:45 (+0000), Curt wrote:
On 2019-01-09, rhkramer@xxxxxxxxx <rhkramer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 09, 2019 03:01:42 AM Richard Hector wrote:
On 9/01/19 6:04 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote:
lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | script
lsblk -ln -o name,label |sort | <script>
I'm not the OP, but I very much like the way you put script in angle brackets
to show that is a parameter (mcow) and not a literal value!!
I'll see that affection for mundane angle brackets and raise you the
annoyance of not having received the vaguest clue as to what might be
found literally inside them (the pertinent part, at the very least).
I don't think the OP told us what the script was,
'Cause ain't written yet ;)
I needed to know if the data was available in a suitable format.
As this should be in a script initialization section, I believe
redirection is more appropriate than pipes.
One line of my script will be:
> lsblk -l -o name,label | sort > /home/richard/mydata.txt
but just that they
want to pipe the output into "a script". Using angle brackets from the
start (or knowing that script itself is a program) would have avoided
the mess in the other subthread.
I had no problem interpreting Jude's post.
My personal convention would have been to write it as
"lsblk -l -o name,label | sort | myscript".
BUT. I read Jude's and Reco's posts at midnight.
Reco's answer of "lsblk -l -x name -o name,label" was better.
I just tried Jude's as I read it after Jude's.
I should reply only when really awake ;/