find: missing argument to `-exec' when using + form of find
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I want to execute a command on the paths found with the find
command and I want to use +
to reduce the number of times the external command is launched.
Critically, the command has a fixed value final argument. Here's a concrete example with echo
as the command, although in the real :
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -exec echo {} second +
I would expect this to print:
./fooA ./fooB second
but instead I get the error find: missing argument to
-exec'. I've tried all sorts of permutations to get it to work with +. Why isn't this working? It works find with the
;` variant:
find . -name 'foo*' -exec echo {} second ;
./fooB second
./fooA second
... but that's not what I'm after.
find --version
reports:
find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
Written by Eric B. Decker, James Youngman, and Kevin Dalley.
Built using GNU gnulib version e5573b1bad88bfabcda181b9e0125fb0c52b7d3b
Features enabled: D_TYPE O_NOFOLLOW(enabled) LEAF_OPTIMISATION FTS() CBO(level=0)
Here's an excerpt from the man pages covering the +
and ;
forms:
-exec command ;
Execute command; true if 0 status is returned. All following arguments to find are taken to be arguments to the command until an argument consisting of `;' is encoun‐
tered. The string `{}' is replaced by the current file name being processed everywhere it occurs in the arguments to the command, not just in arguments where it is
alone, as in some versions of find. Both of these constructions might need to be escaped (with a `') or quoted to protect them from expansion by the shell. See the
EXAMPLES section for examples of the use of the -exec option. The specified command is run once for each matched file. The command is executed in the starting direc‐
tory. There are unavoidable security problems surrounding use of the -exec action; you should use the -execdir option instead.
-exec command {} +
This variant of the -exec action runs the specified command on the selected files, but the command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end; the
total number of invocations of the command will be much less than the number of matched files. The command line is built in much the same way that xargs builds its com‐
mand lines. Only one instance of `{}' is allowed within the command. The command is executed in the starting directory.
linux find coreutils
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I want to execute a command on the paths found with the find
command and I want to use +
to reduce the number of times the external command is launched.
Critically, the command has a fixed value final argument. Here's a concrete example with echo
as the command, although in the real :
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -exec echo {} second +
I would expect this to print:
./fooA ./fooB second
but instead I get the error find: missing argument to
-exec'. I've tried all sorts of permutations to get it to work with +. Why isn't this working? It works find with the
;` variant:
find . -name 'foo*' -exec echo {} second ;
./fooB second
./fooA second
... but that's not what I'm after.
find --version
reports:
find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
Written by Eric B. Decker, James Youngman, and Kevin Dalley.
Built using GNU gnulib version e5573b1bad88bfabcda181b9e0125fb0c52b7d3b
Features enabled: D_TYPE O_NOFOLLOW(enabled) LEAF_OPTIMISATION FTS() CBO(level=0)
Here's an excerpt from the man pages covering the +
and ;
forms:
-exec command ;
Execute command; true if 0 status is returned. All following arguments to find are taken to be arguments to the command until an argument consisting of `;' is encoun‐
tered. The string `{}' is replaced by the current file name being processed everywhere it occurs in the arguments to the command, not just in arguments where it is
alone, as in some versions of find. Both of these constructions might need to be escaped (with a `') or quoted to protect them from expansion by the shell. See the
EXAMPLES section for examples of the use of the -exec option. The specified command is run once for each matched file. The command is executed in the starting direc‐
tory. There are unavoidable security problems surrounding use of the -exec action; you should use the -execdir option instead.
-exec command {} +
This variant of the -exec action runs the specified command on the selected files, but the command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end; the
total number of invocations of the command will be much less than the number of matched files. The command line is built in much the same way that xargs builds its com‐
mand lines. Only one instance of `{}' is allowed within the command. The command is executed in the starting directory.
linux find coreutils
What shell are you using?
– roaima
Mar 16 '15 at 23:59
According to the man page the-exec
command expects the{}
at the very end of the expression since it tries to concatenate the files found. Putting thesecond
before the{}
will work but, of course, that does not really help you. The error message is a little misleading.
– Marcus Rickert
Mar 17 '15 at 0:02
Where in the man do you see that? I included the man output on my system in question. For the;
form it is clear that multiple{}
are allowed, implying they don't have to be at the end of the command. The+
form saysthe command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end
- but I read "the end" here as the end of the string which will ultimately be used to replace the{}
. If it was always at the end, why use {}? The textOnly one instance of
{}' is allowed within the command` imlies that one instance can be anywhere (or else why not restrict it)?
– BeeOnRope
Mar 18 '15 at 23:48
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I want to execute a command on the paths found with the find
command and I want to use +
to reduce the number of times the external command is launched.
Critically, the command has a fixed value final argument. Here's a concrete example with echo
as the command, although in the real :
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -exec echo {} second +
I would expect this to print:
./fooA ./fooB second
but instead I get the error find: missing argument to
-exec'. I've tried all sorts of permutations to get it to work with +. Why isn't this working? It works find with the
;` variant:
find . -name 'foo*' -exec echo {} second ;
./fooB second
./fooA second
... but that's not what I'm after.
find --version
reports:
find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
Written by Eric B. Decker, James Youngman, and Kevin Dalley.
Built using GNU gnulib version e5573b1bad88bfabcda181b9e0125fb0c52b7d3b
Features enabled: D_TYPE O_NOFOLLOW(enabled) LEAF_OPTIMISATION FTS() CBO(level=0)
Here's an excerpt from the man pages covering the +
and ;
forms:
-exec command ;
Execute command; true if 0 status is returned. All following arguments to find are taken to be arguments to the command until an argument consisting of `;' is encoun‐
tered. The string `{}' is replaced by the current file name being processed everywhere it occurs in the arguments to the command, not just in arguments where it is
alone, as in some versions of find. Both of these constructions might need to be escaped (with a `') or quoted to protect them from expansion by the shell. See the
EXAMPLES section for examples of the use of the -exec option. The specified command is run once for each matched file. The command is executed in the starting direc‐
tory. There are unavoidable security problems surrounding use of the -exec action; you should use the -execdir option instead.
-exec command {} +
This variant of the -exec action runs the specified command on the selected files, but the command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end; the
total number of invocations of the command will be much less than the number of matched files. The command line is built in much the same way that xargs builds its com‐
mand lines. Only one instance of `{}' is allowed within the command. The command is executed in the starting directory.
linux find coreutils
I want to execute a command on the paths found with the find
command and I want to use +
to reduce the number of times the external command is launched.
Critically, the command has a fixed value final argument. Here's a concrete example with echo
as the command, although in the real :
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -exec echo {} second +
I would expect this to print:
./fooA ./fooB second
but instead I get the error find: missing argument to
-exec'. I've tried all sorts of permutations to get it to work with +. Why isn't this working? It works find with the
;` variant:
find . -name 'foo*' -exec echo {} second ;
./fooB second
./fooA second
... but that's not what I'm after.
find --version
reports:
find (GNU findutils) 4.4.2
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
Written by Eric B. Decker, James Youngman, and Kevin Dalley.
Built using GNU gnulib version e5573b1bad88bfabcda181b9e0125fb0c52b7d3b
Features enabled: D_TYPE O_NOFOLLOW(enabled) LEAF_OPTIMISATION FTS() CBO(level=0)
Here's an excerpt from the man pages covering the +
and ;
forms:
-exec command ;
Execute command; true if 0 status is returned. All following arguments to find are taken to be arguments to the command until an argument consisting of `;' is encoun‐
tered. The string `{}' is replaced by the current file name being processed everywhere it occurs in the arguments to the command, not just in arguments where it is
alone, as in some versions of find. Both of these constructions might need to be escaped (with a `') or quoted to protect them from expansion by the shell. See the
EXAMPLES section for examples of the use of the -exec option. The specified command is run once for each matched file. The command is executed in the starting direc‐
tory. There are unavoidable security problems surrounding use of the -exec action; you should use the -execdir option instead.
-exec command {} +
This variant of the -exec action runs the specified command on the selected files, but the command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end; the
total number of invocations of the command will be much less than the number of matched files. The command line is built in much the same way that xargs builds its com‐
mand lines. Only one instance of `{}' is allowed within the command. The command is executed in the starting directory.
linux find coreutils
linux find coreutils
edited Mar 18 '15 at 23:45
asked Mar 16 '15 at 23:44
BeeOnRope
520619
520619
What shell are you using?
– roaima
Mar 16 '15 at 23:59
According to the man page the-exec
command expects the{}
at the very end of the expression since it tries to concatenate the files found. Putting thesecond
before the{}
will work but, of course, that does not really help you. The error message is a little misleading.
– Marcus Rickert
Mar 17 '15 at 0:02
Where in the man do you see that? I included the man output on my system in question. For the;
form it is clear that multiple{}
are allowed, implying they don't have to be at the end of the command. The+
form saysthe command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end
- but I read "the end" here as the end of the string which will ultimately be used to replace the{}
. If it was always at the end, why use {}? The textOnly one instance of
{}' is allowed within the command` imlies that one instance can be anywhere (or else why not restrict it)?
– BeeOnRope
Mar 18 '15 at 23:48
add a comment |
What shell are you using?
– roaima
Mar 16 '15 at 23:59
According to the man page the-exec
command expects the{}
at the very end of the expression since it tries to concatenate the files found. Putting thesecond
before the{}
will work but, of course, that does not really help you. The error message is a little misleading.
– Marcus Rickert
Mar 17 '15 at 0:02
Where in the man do you see that? I included the man output on my system in question. For the;
form it is clear that multiple{}
are allowed, implying they don't have to be at the end of the command. The+
form saysthe command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end
- but I read "the end" here as the end of the string which will ultimately be used to replace the{}
. If it was always at the end, why use {}? The textOnly one instance of
{}' is allowed within the command` imlies that one instance can be anywhere (or else why not restrict it)?
– BeeOnRope
Mar 18 '15 at 23:48
What shell are you using?
– roaima
Mar 16 '15 at 23:59
What shell are you using?
– roaima
Mar 16 '15 at 23:59
According to the man page the
-exec
command expects the {}
at the very end of the expression since it tries to concatenate the files found. Putting the second
before the {}
will work but, of course, that does not really help you. The error message is a little misleading.– Marcus Rickert
Mar 17 '15 at 0:02
According to the man page the
-exec
command expects the {}
at the very end of the expression since it tries to concatenate the files found. Putting the second
before the {}
will work but, of course, that does not really help you. The error message is a little misleading.– Marcus Rickert
Mar 17 '15 at 0:02
Where in the man do you see that? I included the man output on my system in question. For the
;
form it is clear that multiple {}
are allowed, implying they don't have to be at the end of the command. The +
form says the command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end
- but I read "the end" here as the end of the string which will ultimately be used to replace the {}
. If it was always at the end, why use {}? The text Only one instance of
{}' is allowed within the command` imlies that one instance can be anywhere (or else why not restrict it)?– BeeOnRope
Mar 18 '15 at 23:48
Where in the man do you see that? I included the man output on my system in question. For the
;
form it is clear that multiple {}
are allowed, implying they don't have to be at the end of the command. The +
form says the command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end
- but I read "the end" here as the end of the string which will ultimately be used to replace the {}
. If it was always at the end, why use {}? The text Only one instance of
{}' is allowed within the command` imlies that one instance can be anywhere (or else why not restrict it)?– BeeOnRope
Mar 18 '15 at 23:48
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I couldn't find a solution with find -exec +
or find | xargs
, but GNU Parallel can do the job.
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | parallel -0 -j1 -X echo {} second
Produces:
./fooA ./fooB second
Note, the -j1
option limits parallel
to one job at a time, which is only used here in an attempt to reproduce the behavior that would have been expected from find -exec +
.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Here is a similar solution with find | xargs
:
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 -I{} echo {} second
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I couldn't find a solution with find -exec +
or find | xargs
, but GNU Parallel can do the job.
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | parallel -0 -j1 -X echo {} second
Produces:
./fooA ./fooB second
Note, the -j1
option limits parallel
to one job at a time, which is only used here in an attempt to reproduce the behavior that would have been expected from find -exec +
.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I couldn't find a solution with find -exec +
or find | xargs
, but GNU Parallel can do the job.
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | parallel -0 -j1 -X echo {} second
Produces:
./fooA ./fooB second
Note, the -j1
option limits parallel
to one job at a time, which is only used here in an attempt to reproduce the behavior that would have been expected from find -exec +
.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I couldn't find a solution with find -exec +
or find | xargs
, but GNU Parallel can do the job.
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | parallel -0 -j1 -X echo {} second
Produces:
./fooA ./fooB second
Note, the -j1
option limits parallel
to one job at a time, which is only used here in an attempt to reproduce the behavior that would have been expected from find -exec +
.
I couldn't find a solution with find -exec +
or find | xargs
, but GNU Parallel can do the job.
mkdir blah && cd blah
touch fooA
touch fooB
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | parallel -0 -j1 -X echo {} second
Produces:
./fooA ./fooB second
Note, the -j1
option limits parallel
to one job at a time, which is only used here in an attempt to reproduce the behavior that would have been expected from find -exec +
.
answered Mar 17 '15 at 4:55
zackse
51237
51237
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Here is a similar solution with find | xargs
:
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 -I{} echo {} second
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Here is a similar solution with find | xargs
:
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 -I{} echo {} second
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Here is a similar solution with find | xargs
:
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 -I{} echo {} second
Here is a similar solution with find | xargs
:
find . -name 'foo*' -print0 | xargs -0 -n1 -I{} echo {} second
answered Nov 20 at 22:09
7yl4r
1135
1135
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- 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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f890416%2ffind-missing-argument-to-exec-when-using-form-of-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
What shell are you using?
– roaima
Mar 16 '15 at 23:59
According to the man page the
-exec
command expects the{}
at the very end of the expression since it tries to concatenate the files found. Putting thesecond
before the{}
will work but, of course, that does not really help you. The error message is a little misleading.– Marcus Rickert
Mar 17 '15 at 0:02
Where in the man do you see that? I included the man output on my system in question. For the
;
form it is clear that multiple{}
are allowed, implying they don't have to be at the end of the command. The+
form saysthe command line is built by appending each selected file name at the end
- but I read "the end" here as the end of the string which will ultimately be used to replace the{}
. If it was always at the end, why use {}? The textOnly one instance of
{}' is allowed within the command` imlies that one instance can be anywhere (or else why not restrict it)?– BeeOnRope
Mar 18 '15 at 23:48