[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Danish
<me.linuxadmin@gmail.com>], who wrote in article <1155537414.080719.126630@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups .com>:
> Hi,
> Can anyone please guide me as to how use pipe with unzip. For eg, Iv
> got a lot of zip files in a directory. So id like to `ls` them to a
> pipe and then unzip it.
>
> $ls *.zip
>
> 1.zip
> 2.zip
>
> Can I do
> $ls *.zip | unzip
>
> I tried it, but was not working...Tried googling but didnt find
> much..Need it urgently

Out of tens of postings, nobody gave a "correct" one:

unzip "*.zip"

Hope this s,
Ilya

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
> Danish
> <me.linuxadmin@gmail.com>], who wrote in article <1155537414.080719.126630@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups .com>:
> > Hi,
> > Can anyone please guide me as to how use pipe with unzip. For eg, Iv
> > got a lot of zip files in a directory. So id like to `ls` them to a
> > pipe and then unzip it.
> >
> > $ls *.zip
> >
> > 1.zip
> > 2.zip
> >
> > Can I do
> > $ls *.zip | unzip
> >
> > I tried it, but was not working...Tried googling but didnt find
> > much..Need it urgently
>
> Out of tens of postings, nobody gave a "correct" one:
>
> unzip "*.zip"
>
> Hope this s,
> Ilya

Thank you very much
Danish

On 21 Aug 2006 02:07:22 -0700, Danish wrote:
[...]
>> Out of tens of postings, nobody gave a "correct" one:
>>
>> unzip "*.zip"
[...]

Indeed, there's a bug in unzip that makes it behave the msdos
way even on Unix (where *, ?, [, \ are allowed in filenames).

So the only correct one is

unzip "*.zip"

And if you want to use a for loop or find, you need to escape
the *, ?, \ and [ characters first in filenames:

Something like:

for f in ./*.zip; do
[ -f "$f" ] || continue
[ -L "$f" ] && continue
escaped_f=$(
printf '%s\n' "$f" | sed 's/[][\?*]/\\&/g'
)
unzip "$escaped_f"
done

--
Stephane

Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2006 02:07:22 -0700, Danish wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>Out of tens of postings, nobody gave a "correct" one:
>>>
>>> unzip "*.zip"
>
> [...]
>
> Indeed, there's a bug in unzip that makes it behave the msdos
> way even on Unix (where *, ?, [, \ are allowed in filenames).
>
> So the only correct one is
>
> unzip "*.zip"
>
> And if you want to use a for loop or find, you need to escape
> the *, ?, \ and [ characters first in filenames:
>
> Something like:
>
> for f in ./*.zip; do
> [ -f "$f" ] || continue
> [ -L "$f" ] && continue
> escaped_f=$(
> printf '%s\n' "$f" | sed 's/[][\?*]/\\&/g'
> )
> unzip "$escaped_f"
> done
>

Dear God, that's ugly. Whoever decided unzip shouldn't
handle a list of filenames but *should* try to do its own
globbing needs to be shot.


Chris Mattern

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Chris Mattern
<syscjm@gwu.edu>], who wrote in article <12ejf8nmrj4o0e7@corp.supernews.com>:
> >>>Out of tens of postings, nobody gave a "correct" one:

> >>> unzip "*.zip"

> Dear God, that's ugly. Whoever decided unzip shouldn't
> handle a list of filenames but *should* try to do its own
> globbing needs to be shot.

Opionions differ. IMO, whoever got this (broken) idea that it is the
shell who globs (and not CRTL of the called application) should be
treated unmercifully.

Only the arguments which are meaningful to be globbed should be
globbed, and only the application knows its syntax to support this.
Otherwise you get this "just do not have a file named `-rf'" logic.

Of course, this flaw can't be easily fixed in current Unix shells
(well, interaction with `complete' database can somewhat here).
But whoever (?) wants to design a better shell (on a system with
not-yet finished CRTL ;-), could revisit this problem.

But I already expressed this opinion many times...

Hope this s,
Ilya

Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> wrote:
> Opionions differ. IMO, whoever got this (broken) idea that it is the
> shell who globs (and not CRTL of the called application) should be
> treated unmercifully.

Why should the wheel be reinvented for each and every application what
can be done in a consistent manner by a single instance (the shell)?

--
Daniel

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Daniel Rock
<v200638@deadcafe.de>], who wrote in article <eeofqi$26a7$2@server.rock.net>:
> Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> wrote:
> > Opionions differ. IMO, whoever got this (broken) idea that it is the
> > shell who globs (and not CRTL of the called application) should be
> > treated unmercifully.
>
> Why should the wheel be reinvented for each and every application

Not in applications; as I said, the default, "legacy-compatible",
globbing would be done in CRTL. The applications should be able to
override this.

> what can be done in a consistent manner by a single instance (the
> shell)?

By definition, shell can't do any reasonable globbing; otherwise you
get the "just do not have a file named -rf" syndrom. Only the
application knows which arguments can have a meaning of a
file-pattern, so may be globbed.

Hope this s,
Ilya

Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> wrote:
> Only the application knows which arguments can have a meaning of a
> file-pattern, so may be globbed.

.... and that in a wonderful inconsistent way:

C:\> cd Prog*
C:\Programme>

Note: Globbing is technically wrong here since "cd" only expects a single
directory name as an argument.

[In a directory with lots of .TXT-Files]

C> notepad *.txt
[a dialog pops up
The syntax for file name, directory name or volume name is wrong
(manually translated)]

Note: Globbing makes sense here because I might want to edit multiple files
at the same time.

It's better let this shell doing this. And your famous "-rf" filename:
-- is your fried. A much better work-around than begging for each
application programmer implementing globbing consistent.


> Hope this s,

Hope this s,

--
Daniel