What is different between /bin/tcsh and /bin/tcsh -f ?
I create environment variables before I run a script. How does 'f' effect ?
The documentation for tcsh has the answer you are looking for:
When a command to be executed is found not to be a builtin command the
shell attempts to execute the command via execve(2). Each word in the
variable path names a directory in which the shell will look for the
command. If the shell is not given a -f option, the shell hashes the
names in these directories into an internal table so that it will try
an execve(2) in only a directory where there is a possibility that the
command resides there. This greatly speeds command location when a
large number of directories are present in the search path. This
hashing mechanism is not used: ... 2. If the shell was given a -f argument.
I would like to write a script that has several commands of the kind
> export PATH=$PREFIX/bin
Where
> $PREFIX = /home/usr
or something else. Instead of typing it into the the Shell (/bin/bash) I would run the script to execute the commands.
Tried it with sh and then with a .py script having the line,
> commands.getstatusoutput('export PATH=$PREFIX/bin')
but these result into the error "bad variable name".
Would be thankful for some ideas!
If you need to adjust PATH (or any other environment variable) via a script after your .profile and equivalents have been run, you need to 'dot' or 'source' the file containing the script:
. file_setting_path
source file_setting_path
The . notation applies to all Bourne shell derivatives, and is standardized by POSIX. The source notation is used in C shell and has infected Bash completely unnecessarily.
Note that the file (file_setting_path) can be specified as a pathname, or if it lives in a directory listed on $PATH, it will be found. It only needs to be readable; it does not have to be executable.
The way the dot command works is that it reads the named file as part of the current shell environment, rather than executing it in a sub-shell like a normal script would be executed. Normally, the sub-shell sets its environment happily, but that doesn't affect the calling script.
The bad variable name is probably just a complaint that $PREFIX is undefined.
Usually a setting of PATH would look something like
export PATH=$PATH:/new/path/to/programs
so that you retain the old PATH but add something onto the end.
You are best off putting such things in your .bashrc so that they get run every time you log in.
I have a shell script on a mac (OSX 10.9) named msii810161816_TMP_CMD with the following content.
matlab
When I execute it, I get
./msii810161816_TMP_CMD: line 1: matlab: command not found
However, when I type matlab into the shell directly it starts as normal. How can it be that the same command works inside the shell but not inside a shell script? I copy-pasted the command directly from the script into the shell and it worked ...
PS: When I replace the content of the script with
echo matlab
I get the desired result, so I can definitely execute the shell script (I use ./msii810161816_TMP_CMD)
Thanks guys!
By default, aliases are not expanded in non-interactive shells, which is what shell scripts are. Aliases are intended to be used by a person at the keyboard as a typing aid.
If your goal is to not have to type the full path to matlab, instead of creating an alias you should modify your $PATH. Add /Applications/MATLAB_R2014a.app/bin to your $PATH environment variable and then both you and your shell scripts will be able to simply say
matlab
This is because, as commenters have stated, the PATH variable inside of the shell executing the script does not include the directory containing the matlab executable.
When a command name is used, like "matlab", your shell looks at every directory in the PATH in order, searching for one containing an executable file with the name "matlab".
Without going into too much detail, the PATH is determined by the shell being invoked.
When you execute bash, it combines a global setting for basic directories that must be in the PATH with any settings in your ~/.bashrc which alter the PATH.
Most likely, you are not running your script in a shell where the PATH includes matlab's directory.
To verify this, you can take the following steps:
Run which matlab. This will show you the path to the matlab executable.
Run echo "$PATH". This will show you your current PATH settings. Note that the directory from which matlab is included in the colon-separated list.
Add a line to the beginning of your script that does echo "$PATH". Note that the directory from which matlab is not included.
To resolve this, ensure that your script is executed in a shell that has the needed directory in the PATH.
You can do this a few ways, but the two most highly recommended ones would be
Add a shebang line to the start of your script. Assuming that you want to run it with bash, do #!/bin/bash or whatever the path to your bash interpreter is.
The shebang line is not actually fully standardized by POSIX, so BSD-derived systems like OSX will happily handle multiple arguments to the shebanged executable, while Linux systems pass at most one argument.
In spite of this, the shebang is an easy and simple way to document what should be used to execute the script, so it's a good solution.
Explicitly invoke your script with a shell as its interpreter, as in bash myscript.sh or tcsh myscript.sh or even sh myscript.sh
This is not incompatible with using a shebang line, and using both is a common practice.
I believe that the default shell on OSX is always bash, so you should start by trying with that.
If these instructions don't help, then you'll have to dig deeper to find out why or how the PATH is being altered between the calling context and the script's internal context.
Ultimately, this is almost certainly the source of your issue.
I am using Bash
$ echo $SHELL
/bin/bash
and starting about a year ago I stopped using Shebangs with my Bash scripts. Can
I benefit from using #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash?
Update: In certain situations a file is only treated as a script with the
Shebang, example
$ cat foo.sh
ls
$ cat bar.sh
#!/bin/sh
ls
$ file foo.sh bar.sh
foo.sh: ASCII text
bar.sh: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable
On UNIX-like systems, you should always start scripts with a shebang line. The system call execve (which is responsible for starting programs) relies on an executable having either an executable header or a shebang line.
From FreeBSD's execve manual page:
The execve() system call transforms the calling process into a new
process. The new process is constructed from an ordinary file, whose
name is pointed to by path, called the new process file.
[...]
This file is
either an executable object file, or a file of data for an interpreter.
[...]
An interpreter file begins with a line of the form:
#! interpreter [arg]
When an interpreter file is execve'd, the system actually execve's the
specified interpreter. If the optional arg is specified, it becomes the
first argument to the interpreter, and the name of the originally
execve'd file becomes the second argument
Similarly from the Linux manual page:
execve() executes the program pointed to by filename. filename must be
either a binary executable, or a script starting with a line of the
form:
#! interpreter [optional-arg]
In fact, if a file doesn't have the right "magic number" in it's header, (like an ELF header or #!), execve will fail with the ENOEXEC error (again from FreeBSD's execve manpage):
[ENOEXEC] The new process file has the appropriate access
permission, but has an invalid magic number in its
header.
If the file has executable permissions, but no shebang line but does seem to be a text file, the behaviour depends on the shell that you're running in.
Most shells seem to start a new instance of themselves and feed it the file, see below.
Since there is no guarantee that the script was actually written for that shell, this can work or fail spectacularly.
From tcsh(1):
On systems which do not understand the `#!' script interpreter conven‐
tion the shell may be compiled to emulate it; see the version shell
variable. If so, the shell checks the first line of the file to see if
it is of the form `#!interpreter arg ...'. If it is, the shell starts
interpreter with the given args and feeds the file to it on standard
input.
From FreeBSD's sh(1):
If the program is not a normal executable file (i.e., if it
does not begin with the “magic number” whose ASCII representation is
“#!”, resulting in an ENOEXEC return value from execve(2)) but appears to
be a text file, the shell will run a new instance of sh to interpret it.
From bash(1):
If this execution fails because the file is not in executable format,
and the file is not a directory, it is assumed to be a shell script, a
file containing shell commands. A subshell is spawned to execute it.
You cannot always depend on the location of a non-standard program like bash. I've seen bash in /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/fsf/bin and /opt/gnu/bin to name a few.
So it is generally a good idea to use env;
#!/usr/bin/env bash
If you want your script to be portable, use sh instead of bash.
#!/bin/sh
While standards like POSIX do not guarantee the absolute paths of standard utilities, most UNIX-like systems seem to have sh in /bin and env in /usr/bin.
Scripts should always begin with a shebang line. If a script doesn't start with this, then it may be executed by the current shell. But that means that if someone who uses your script is running a different shell than you do, the script may behave differently. Also, it means the script can't be run directly from a program (e.g. the C exec() system call, or find -exec), it has to be run from a shell.
You might be interested in an early description by Dennis M Ritchie (dmr) who invented the #! :
From uucp Thu Jan 10 01:37:58 1980
.>From dmr Thu Jan 10 04:25:49 1980 remote from research
The system has been changed so that if a file
being executed begins with the magic characters #! , the rest of the
line is understood to be the name of an interpreter for the executed
file. Previously (and in fact still) the shell did much of this job;
it automatically executed itself on a text file with executable mode
when the text file's name was typed as a command. Putting the facility
into the system gives the following benefits.
1) It makes shell scripts more like real executable files, because
they can be the subject of 'exec.'
2) If you do a 'ps' while such a command is running, its real name
appears instead of 'sh'. Likewise, accounting is done on the basis of
the real name.
3) Shell scripts can be set-user-ID.
4) It is simpler to have alternate shells available; e.g. if you like
the Berkeley csh there is no question about which shell is to
interpret a file.
5) It will allow other interpreters to fit in more smoothly.
To take advantage of this wonderful opportunity, put
#! /bin/sh
at the left margin of the first line of your shell scripts. Blanks
after ! are OK. Use a complete pathname (no search is done). At the
moment the whole line is restricted to 16 characters but this limit
will be raised.
Hope this helps
If you write bash scripts, i.e. non portable scripts containing bashisms, you should keep using the #!/bin/bash shebang just to be sure the correct interpreter is used. You should not replace the shebang by #!/bin/sh as bash will run in POSIX mode so some of your scripts might behave differently.
If you write portable scripts, i.e. scripts only using POSIX utilities and their supported options, you might keep using #!/bin/sh on your system (i.e. one where /bin/sh is a POSIX shell).
It you write stricly conforming POSIX scripts to be distributed in various platforms and you are sure they will only be launched from a POSIX conforming system, you might and probably should remove the shebang as stated in the POSIX standard:
As it stands, a strictly conforming application must not use "#!" as the first two characters of the file.
The rationale is the POSIX standard doesn't mandate /bin/sh to be the POSIX compliant shell so there is no portable way to specify its path in a shebang. In this third case, to be able to use the 'find -exec' syntax on systems unable to run a shebangless still executable script, you can simply specify the interpreter in the find command itself, eg:
find /tmp -name "*.foo" -exec sh -c 'myscript "$#"' sh {} +
Here, as sh is specified without a path, the POSIX shell will be run.
The header is useful since it specifies which shell to use when running the script. For example, #!/bin/zsh would change the shell to zsh instead of bash, where you can use different commands.
For example, this page specifies the following:
Using #!/bin/sh, the default Bourne shell in most commercial variants
of UNIX, makes the script portable to non-Linux machines, though you
sacrifice Bash-specific features ...
TL;DR: always in scripts; please not in source'd scripts
Always in your parent
FYI: POSIX compliant is #!/bin/bash, not #!/bin/sh
You want to clarify this so that nothing else overrides the interpreter your script is made for.
You don't want a user at the terminal using zsh to have trouble if your script was written for POSIX bash scripts.
You don't want to run source in your #!/bin/bash unrecognized by #!/bin/sh, someone in an sh terminal have it break the script because it is expecting the simple/POSIX . for including source'd files
You don't want e.g. zsh features - not available in other interpreters - to make their way into your bash code. So, put #!/bin/bash in all your script headers. Then, any of your zsh habits in your script will break so you know to remove them before your roll-out.
It's probably best, especially so POSIX-compliant scripts don't break in a terminal like zsh.
Not expected for included source scripts
FYI: POSIX compliant for sourcing text in a BASH script is ., not source
You can use either for sourcing, but I'll do POSIX.
Standard "shebanging" for all scripting:
parent.sh:
#!/bin/bash
echo "My script here"
. sourced.sh # child/source script, below
sourced.sh:
echo "I am a sourced child script"
But, you are allowed to do this...
sourced.sh: (optional)
#!/bin/bash
echo "I am a sourced child script"
There, the #!/bin/bash "shebang" will be ignored. The main reason I would use it is for syntax highlighting in my text editor. However, in the "proper" scripting world, it is expected that your rolled-out source'd script will not contain the shebang.
In addition to what the others said, the shebang also enables syntax highlighting in some text editors, for example vim.
$SHELL and #!/bin/bash or #!/bin/sh are different.
To start, #!/bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on most Linux systems (on Ubuntu it is now /bin/dash)
But on whether to start with /bin/sh or /bin/bash:
Bash and sh are two different shells. Basically bash is sh, with more
features and better syntax. Most commands work the same, but they are
different.
Just assume if you're writing a bash script, stick with /bin/bash and not /sh because problems can arise.
$SHELL does not necessarily reflect the currently running shell.
Instead, $SHELL is the user's preferred shell, which is typically the
one set in /etc/passwd. If you start a different shell after logging
in, you can not necessarily expect $SHELL to match the current shell
anymore.
This is mine for example, but it could also be /root:/bin/dash or /root:/bin/sh depending on which shell you have input in passwd. So to avoid any problems, keep the passwd file at /bin/bash and then using $SHELL vs. #!/bin/bash wouldn't matter as much.
root#kali:~/Desktop# cat /etc/passwd
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash
Sources:
http://shebang.mintern.net/bourne-is-not-bash-or-read-echo-and-backslash/
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/43499/difference-between-echo-shell-and-which-bash
http://man.cx/sh
http://man.cx/bash
I just learned that I could use chmod make myscript.sh executable and the run it as $ ./myscript.sh But how can I attach a custom command to it, like $ connectme [options] ?
You need to do two things:
Give the name you want to use. Either just rename it, or establish a link (hard or symbolic). Make sure the correctly named object has the right permissions.
Make sure it is in you path. But putting "." in you PATH is a bad idea (tm), so copy it to $HOME/bin, and put that in you path.
A completely different approach. Most shells support aliases. You could define one to run your script.
Note: The environment variable PATH tells the shell where to look for programs to run (unless you specify a fully qualified path like /home/jdoe/scripts/myscript.sh or ./myscript.sh), it consists of a ":" seperated list of directories to examine. You can check yours with:
$ printenv PATH
resulting for me in
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/X11/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin
which are the usual directories for binaries. You can add a new path element with (in /bin/sh and derivatives):
$ export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/bin
in csh and derivatives use
$ setenv PATH $PATH:$HOME/bin
either of which which will result in the shell also searching ~/bin for things to run. Then move your script into that directory (giving ta new name if you want). Check that you execute permissions for the script, and just type its name like any other command.
Fianlly, the use of a ".sh" extension to denote a shell script is for human consumption only. Unix does not care about how you name your script: it is the so-called "shebang" ("#!") on the first line of the script that the OS uses to find the interpreter.
You need to learn about arguments in BASH PROGRAMMING. Here is a good tutorial on them. Check section #4 out.
Basically, you need to use special variables $1, $2, $3 to refer to first, second and third command line arguments respectively.
Example:
$ ./mycript.sh A-Rod
With myscript.sh being:
#!/bin/bash
echo "Hello $1"
Will print:
Hello A-Rod