Corey Cox sleepnir at usa.net
Tue Dec 26 09:08:25 PST 2000

Rudolf Floers <r.floers at web.de> wrote:
> > ( make > log 2>&1 ) == ( make &> log ) == ( make >& log )
> == ( make 1> log 2> log )
> isn't it?

Is there a way to split the error output so that it ends up both in a main
log file and an error log file?  Something like... (I don't know if this
would work)

some_command &> some_command.log 2> err.log

I would find it usefule to just be able to look at the error output but
also see it in reference to the standard output when I try to figure out
what happened.  Is that possible (without being too involved?)

Corey Cox.

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list