UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

I'm searching for particular scripts that contain pattern "BASIS" so I used the following command:

Code:

find . -type f -print | xargs grep "BASIS"

or

Code:

find . -type f -exec grep "BASIS" {} \;

However, I found out that the find command in the UNIX box that I'm working on doesn't find files recursively. For example

directory A contains directory B, directory B contains directory C, then directory C contains the scripts 1.sh, 2.sh, and 3.sh e.g.

Code:

/A/B/C/ > ls
1.sh              2.sh             3.sh

When I try to execute the commands above on /A, I don't get any results. I cd on B folder and execute the commands above and I get results. e.g.

Code:

/A > find . -type f
/A > 
/A > cd B
/A/B > find . -type f
./C/1.sh
./C/2.sh
./C/3.sh

What could be the problem with find command? How can I make the find command search recursively on all directories under this folder? I'm on a HP-UX server if that helps.

First of all check if these are symbolic links.

By default find command does not follow if it is a symbolic link.

You have to use -follow option which causes find to follow symbolic links:

Code:

find . -type f -follow

That use of -follow has no effect whatsoever since no symbolic link occurs after it. Not all find implementations support -follow, and it's deprecated for those that do.

If you are correct and the issue is that a symbolic link is not being followed, the simpler and portable solution is to use -L.

Regards,
Alister

---------- Post updated at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous update was at 03:54 PM ----------

To the OP, it might help to see the output of ls -alR from the parent of A.

Regards,
Alister

Alister, using that command I found out that some directories are actually symbolic links and the use of -follow seems to be working for me so far.

Thanks a lot guys.

@The Gamemaster:
Woops. I misunderstood how -follow works. Still, probably better to use -L.

@Yoda:
Nice catch.

Regards,
Alister

---------- Post updated at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous update was at 04:24 PM ----------

From Symbolic Links - Finding Files
If the it is otherwise equivalent to `-L' clause is true (which, as far as I can tell it is), then why is it followed by further qualifications.

If The ‘-follow' option affects only those tests which appear after it on the command line. were true, then a -follow at the end of a command would have no effect. If this were correct, then Yoda's -follow would have no effect since it occurs at the end of a command line, with nothing to affect after it.

I just ran a few tests and confirmed that Yoda's find does indeed work. In my opinion, that success contradicts the GNU find manual.

This is not something that troubles me deeply, since I don't depend on a GNU userland; I just thought it might be worth pointing out.

Regards,
Alister

How do you use the -L option? Like find -L . -type f? Or find . -type f -L? It doesn't work for me either way. Yoda's suggestion works for me so far.

The proper solution is to ignore me.

I was quoting the GNU find manual above and had not realized that you were on HP-UX.

I am not familiar with HP-UX, but a manual page that I found online indicates support for -follow and no support for -L (which I believe was added to POSIX in the 2004 edition).

Further, the HP-UX manual does not seem to contradict itself. From find - HP-UX :
I apologize for creating confusion. Revel in your -follow glory.

Regards,
Alister