I have a functions.sh script with a bunch of global functions that i want to use in other scripts. this functions script is written in bash (#!/bin/bash)
Those many scripts had been written over the years, so the older ones or with the #!/bin/sh (which is different from #!/bin/bash in solaris).
My question here is, when you call the functions.sh file (with . /path/to/functions.sh) from within a sh (not bash) script, is the shebang line of "functions.sh" interpreted ?
In a nutshell, can you call a bash written function script from another shell-type script (with proper shebang lines in both) ?
Thanks !
As long as you want to use the function you need to source the scripts and not execute it
source /path/to/functions.sh
or as per the POSIX standards, do
. ./path/to/functions.sh
from within the sh script, which is equivalent to including the contents of function.sh in the file at the point where the command is run.
You need to understand the difference between sourcing and executing a script.
Sourcing runs the script from the parent-shell in which the script is
invoked; all the environment variables, functions are retained until the
parent-shell is terminated (the terminal is closed, or the variables
are reset or unset),
Execute forks a new shell from the parent shell and those variables,functions
including your export variables are retained only in the sub-shell's
environment and destroyed at the end of script termination.
When you source a file, the shebang in that file is ignored (it is not on the first line since it is included in the caller script and is seen as comment).
When you include an old script with #!/bin/sh it will be handled as the shell of the caller. Most things written in /bin/sh will work in bash.
When you are running a sh or ksh script and you include (source) a bash file, all bash specific code will give problems.
Related
I've a master shell script which calls functions defined in various other shell scripts. The master script includes other scripts using 'source' command.
I want to use a common interpreter for all the scripts regardless of what the she bang ("#!/bin/sh") has been set to in those scripts. I want to supply that interpreter from command line.
for example:
master.sh (with #!/bin/sh)
subscript1.sh (with #!/bin/sh)
subscript2.sh (with #!/bin/sh)
subscript3.sh (with #!/bin/sh)
master.sh calls functions which are defined in the subscripts and are included as 'source subscript1.sh', 'source subscript2.sh' and 'source subscript3.sh'.
When I run ./master.sh, the subscript use their respective interpreters as directed by "#!/bin/sh" line. I want to run all of them using '/bin/bash', the master and the subscripts but without changing the she bang line because there are a lot of such scripts. Is there any way to do this?
Call the interpreter explicitly:
bash ./master.sh
Note that the shebang line has no effect on scripts run using source. That command always executes the script in the current shell process, so it uses whatever interpreter is currently running.
But this all seems dangerous. If someone writes #!/bin/sh instead of #!/bin/bash, it may have dependencies on sh syntax that would be violated if bash were used instead.
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 have noticed some weird behavior when sourcing another script within my shell script. The script that I am sourcing to setup the environment in my shell script takes an optional argument, e.g.
source setup.sh version1
However in my shell script I have also have command line argument variables. For example:
./myscript.sh TEST 1
Inside myscript.sh:
#!/bin/zsh
source setup.sh
echo ROOT version setup $ROOT_SYS
...more of the script
The problem that I have noticed with my script above is that the $1 argument (TEST in this example) is used in the source setup.sh command. This causes the command to become
source setup.sh TEST
which of course fails as setup.sh does not have a version TEST.
I solved this problem by editing my script to below.
#!/bin/zsh
source setup.sh version1
echo ROOT version setup $ROOT_SYS
...more of the script
The source command now does not pick up the $1 argument.
Why/How does the source command pick up the $1 argument when I am running my shell script?
Historically, unix shells didn't allow any arguments to be passed to scripts called with the . built-in (source is an alias of . available in bash, ksh and zsh). The . built-in means “act as if this file was actually included here”.
In bash, ksh and zsh, if you pass extra arguments to the . built-in, they become positional parameters ($1 and so on) in the sourced script. If you pass zero arguments, the positional parameters of the main script remain in effect. In those shells, . behaves rather like calling a function, though not perfectly so (in particular, in bash, if you modify the positional parameters inside the sub-script, the modification is seen by the main script).
A simple way of avoiding this kind of difficulty is to only ever define functions (and perhaps variables) in the subscript. Treat it as a code library, such that merely sourcing it has no effect, and then call functions from the sub-script to actually do something.
This is because source executes the code of setup.sh as if it was in place, so when setup.sh access, say, $1, the value it has is that of the first argument of the actual script. If you want to avoid that you could either execute it:
setup.sh
or, if you need to get back some variables or values from it, change it to return the result in form of an output, something like:
ROOT_SYS=`setup.sh`
Finally, as you figured out, the source keywords also allows providing arguments to the scripts, but it bypasses current arguments if you don't provide any.
I used 'change directory' in my shell script (bash)
#!/bin/bash
alias mycd='cd some_place'
mycd
pwd
pwd prints some_place correctly, but after the script finished my current working directory doesn't change.
Is it possible to change my path by script?
You need to source the file as:
. myfile.sh
or
source myfile.sh
Without sourcing the changes will happen in the sub-shell and not in the parent shell which is invoking the script. But when you source a file the lines in the file are executed as if they were typed at the command line.
While sourcing the script you want to run is one solution, you should be aware that this script then can directly modify the environment of your current shell. Also it is not possible to pass arguments anymore.
Another way to do, is to implement your script as a function in bash.
function cdbm() {
cd whereever_you_want_to_go
echo arguments to the functions were $1, $2, ...
}
This technique is used by autojump:
http://github.com/joelthelion/autojump/wiki
to provide you with learning shell directory bookmarks.
The script is run in a separate subshell. That subshell changes directory, not the shell you run it in. A possible solution is to source the script instead of running it:
# Bash
source yourscript.sh
# or POSIX sh
. yourscript.sh
It can be achieved by sourcing. Sourcing is basically execute the script in the same shell whereas normal execution(sh test.sh or ./test.sh) will create sub shell and execute script there.
test.sh
cd development/
ls
# Do whatever you want.
Execute test.sh by
source test.sh
. is shortest notation for source. So you can also do by
. test.sh
This will execute the script and change the directory of current shell to development/.
whenever you run a script on your login shell, a new subprocess is spawned and the script execution is done in a subshell.Once the script completes, the subshell exits and you are returned to the login shell.Hence whenever you do a cd through a script,the directory is changed to the path specified by cd, but by the time script finishes you come back to your login shell to the working directory from where you started the script.
The way to overcome this is use,
source yourscript.sh
what source does is it executes the script as TCL script, i.e it has the same effect as when you typed each line on the command line of your login shell and it executed from there. So this way when the script finishes after cd , it stays in that directory.
Another practical solution is to end your script by opening another shell session.
For instance:
#!/bin/bash
cd some_place
bash
This is useful, in my case, for scripts located in my ~/bin for instance, called from any other place. It is just a bit painful to type source ~/bin/mygoodoldscript instead of mygoo<TAB><ENTER>.
The downside is that the additional shell takes up a few more resources (not much).
Though there are answers. I think the intention of question is to use script to navigate to specific path.
Here is a simple practical solution works here without cancel out existing terminal environment flag.
provide a bash/tch/sh script to work for path generation
/* .goto.sh */
#!/usr/bin/env bash
echo '~/workspace'
add alias to the script output
alias goto 'cd `.goto.sh`'