From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Sep 7 09:50:52 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA18034 for questions-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 09:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broken.whitefang.com (broken.whitefang.com [199.173.153.182]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA18025 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 09:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (shadows@localhost) by broken.whitefang.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA01474 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:49:00 +0300 (AST) X-Authentication-Warning: broken.whitefang.com: shadows owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:48:59 +0300 (AST) From: The ShadowS Know Reply-To: shadows@whitefang.com To: FreeBSD-Questions Subject: Re: Did grep catch a bug in 2.1.5?? In-Reply-To: <322FA5B3.2A5C@ime.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Gary Chrysler wrote: > Same files, Same Tree structure. Same shell? It sounded to me like you were using two different shells which interpreted the command line differently. I had a few scuffles with grep and the like while using an unfamaliar shell. > An interesting thing I just noticed though, If I enclose tcguy.net in > quotes "tcguy.net" (As it probably should be :) it seems to work fine in > the current dir, but dosn't pick up the occurances in the sub dirs.. > /etc/namedb/tcguy.fwd for example! It realy smells like you used different shells which acted differently *shrug* I could be wrong though :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ShadowS WhiteFang Unix Software Development Thamer Al-Herbish And Consultancy. shadows@whitefang.com Specialising in Custom Network Applications for Unix Systems. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------