I use GNU Emacs on Windows with git-bash for unix tools like locate, grep and find. The git-bash tools spit out paths in the following form:
/c/path/to/file/file.txt
Emacs needs for functions like find-file, find-file-at-point or (with the helm-package) the function helm-find-file its paths in the form
c:/path/to/file/file.txt
I wrote a converter-function which converts the former into the latter and I hooked it via defadvice in expand-file-name. This works reasonable well (e.g. in my initial use case to make helm-locate cooperate with the git-bash locate).
However in some cases it does not work, like in interactive use of find-file-at-point. So my question is what is a more universal place to hook this converter in to make even interactive calls work properly?
jenesaisquoi's comment brought me to cygwin-mount.el. I tried it with gitbash - and it magically works!
The reason is that gitbash provides a similar mount command as cygwin does and gitbash's paths are cygwin paths as well.
Just make sure the gitbash binaries are in emacs' PATH environment variable.
I have written a bash script in a text editor, what extension do I save my script as so it can run as a bash script? I've created a script that should in theory start an ssh server. I am wondering how to make the script execute once I click on it. I am running OS X 10.9.5.
Disagreeing with the other answers, there's a common convention to use a .sh extension for shell scripts -- but it's not a useful convention. It's better not to use an extension at all. The advantage of being able tell that foo.sh is a shell script because of its name is minimal, and you pay for it with a loss of flexibility.
To make a bash script executable, it needs to have a shebang line at the top:
#!/bin/bash
and use the chmod +x command so that the system recognizes it as an executable file. It then needs to be installed in one of the directories listed in your $PATH. If the script is called foo, you can then execute it from a shell prompt by typing foo. Or if it's in the current directory (common for temporary scripts), you can type ./foo.
Neither the shell nor the operating system pays any attention to the extension part of the file name. It's just part of the name. And by not giving it a special extension, you ensure that anyone (either a user or another script) that uses it doesn't have to care how it was implemented, whether it's a shell script (sh, bash, csh, or whatever), a Perl, Python, or Awk script, or a binary executable. The system is specifically designed so that either an interpreted script or a binary executable can be invoked without knowing or caring how it's implemented.
UNIX-like systems started out with a purely textual command-line interface. GUIs like KDE and Gnome were added later. In a GUI desktop system, you can typically run a program (again, whether it's a script or a binary executable) by, for example, double-clicking on an icon that refers to it. Typically this discards any output the program might print and doesn't let you pass command-line arguments; it's much less flexible than running it from a shell prompt. But for some programs (mostly GUI clients) it can be more convenient.
Shell scripting is best learned from the command line, not from a GUI.
(Some tools do pay attention to file extensions. For example, compilers typically use the extension to determine the language the code is written in: .c for C, .cpp for c++, etc. This convention doesn't apply to executable files.)
Keep in mind that UNIX (and UNIX-like systems) are not Windows. MS Windows generally uses a file's extension to determine how to open/execute it. Binary executables need to have a .exe extension. If you have a UNIX-like shell installed under Windows, you can configure Windows to recognize a .sh extension as a shell script, and use the shell to open it; Windows doesn't have the #! convention.
You don't need any extension (or you could choose an arbitrary one, but .sh is a useful convention).
You should start your script with #!/bin/bash (that first line is understood by execve(2) syscall), and you should make your file executable by chmod u+x. so if your script is in some file $HOME/somedir/somescriptname.sh you need to type once
chmod u+x $HOME/somedir/somescriptname.sh
in a terminal. See chmod(1) for the command and chmod(2) for the syscall.
Unless you are typing the whole file path, you should put that file in some directory mentioned in your PATH (see environ(7) & execvp(3)), which you might set permanently in your ~/.bashrc if your login shell is bash)
BTW, you could write your script in some other language, e.g. in Python by starting it with #!/usr/bin/python, or in Ocaml by starting it with #!/usr/bin/ocaml...
Executing your script by double-clicking (on what? you did not say!) is a desktop environment issue and could be desktop specific (might be different with
Kde, Mate, Gnome, .... or IceWM or RatPoison). Perhaps reading EWMH spec might help you getting a better picture.
Perhaps making your script executable with chmod might make it clickable on your desktop (apparently, Quartz on MacOSX). But then you probably should make it give some visual feedback.
And several computers don't have any desktop, including your own when you access it remotely with ssh.
I don't believe it is a good idea to run your shell script by clicking. You probably want to be able to give arguments to your shell script (and how would you do that by clicking?), and you should care about its output. If you are able to write a shell script, you are able to use an interactive shell in a terminal. That it the best and most natural way to use a script. Good interactive shells (e.g. zsh or fish or perhaps a recent bash) have delicious and configurable autocompletion facilities and you won't have to type a lot (learn to use the tab key of your keyboard). Also, scripts and programs are often parts of composite commands (pipelines, etc...).
PS. I'm using Unix since 1986, and Linux since 1993. I never started my own programs or scripts by clicking. Why should I?
just .sh.
Run the script like this:
./script.sh
EDIT: Like anubhava said, the extension doesn't really matter. But for organisational reasons, it is still recommended to use extensions.
I know this is quite old now but I feel like this adds to what the question was asking for.
If your on a mac and you want to be able to run a script by double clicking it you need to use the .command extension. Also same as before make file executable with chmod -x.
As was noted before, this isn't really that useful tbh.
TL;DR -- If the user (not necessarily the developer) of the script is using a GUI interface, it depends on what file browser they are using. MacOS's Finder will require the .sh extension in order to execute the script. Gnome Nautilus, however, recognizes properly shebanged scripts with or without the .sh extension.
I know it's already been said multiple times the reasons for and against using an extension on bash scripts, but not as much why or why not to use extensions, but I have what I consider to be a good rule of thumb.
If you're the type who hops in and out of bash and using the terminal in general or are developing a tool for someone else who does not use the terminal, put a .sh extension on your bash scripts. That way, users of that script have the option of double-clicking on that file in a GUI file browser to run the script.
If you're the type who primarily does all or most of your work in the terminal, don't bother putting any extension on your bash scripts. They would serve no purpose in the terminal, assuming that you've already set up your ~/.bashrc file to visually differentiate scripts from directories.
Edit:
In the Gnome Nautilus file browser with 4 test files (each with permissions given for the file to be executed) with stupidly simple bash command to open a terminal window (gnome-terminal):
A file with NO extension with #!/bin/bash on the first line.
It worked by double-clicking on the file.
A file with a .sh extension with #!/bin/bash on the first line.
It worked by double-clicking on the file.
A file with NO extension with NO #!/bin/bash on the first line.
It worked by double-clicking on the file...technically, but the GUI gave no indication that it was a shell script. It said it was just a plain text file.
A file with a .sh extension with NO #!/bin/bash on the first line.
It worked by double-clicking on the file.
However, as Keith Thompson, in the comments of this answer, wisely pointed out, relying on the using the .sh extension instead of the bash shebang on the first line of the file (#!/bin/bash) it could cause problems.
Another however, I recall when I was previously using MacOS, that even properly shebanged (is that a word?) bash scripts without a .sh extension could not be run from the GUI on MacOS. I would love for someone to correct me on that in the comments though. If this is true, it would prove that there is a least one file browser out there where the .sh extension matters.
I understand that console applications using git bash invoke sh.exe but I wonder how they continue to use sh.
I see on console apps often you do a sh.exe --login. I would guess this creates a session somewhere and I would presume that the console application would execute commands against it somehow?
Essentially I switched from UNIX to Windows. I have tried a lot of console apps (best being console2 and just git-bash) but they still do not work for me well.
Ia m annoyed enough that I fancy trying to programming a simple shell in Java. (I am a Java developer by trade.)
Any help would be great thanks to understand this, looking but searchs with console or git-bash in google generate so much random noise.
If you are using one of the various Unix shells ported to Windows, you should be aware that most of these shells use some heuristic to make Windows look like Unix, either to build a compatibility layout or for user convenience.
For instance, the git command is probably stored in a git.exe file but your shell scripts imported from your Unix workstation all say git so the shell will lookup git.exe if it does not find git.
Nobe of these heuristics works perfectly, so you have to expect regular inconsistencies and disagreements, especially if your are mixing several Unix ports together.
As for the meaning of --login, it is synonymous to -l and its main effect is to decide which initialization files are read by bash on startup`
-l Make bash act as if it had been invoked as a login shell (see
INVOCATION below).
I am using Sphinx quite often. There is one index that calls a stored procedure with one param as input. The param can be any number from 1 to 10 and each returs different results. Since it would make sphinx config quite crowded, even with inheritance. So I thought I will use shebang line at the start of sphinx config file (stored as sphinx.py now). This works great in production enviroment since it runs on Ubuntu. But I want to run it on my local machine as well, but here is the problem called - Windows. Since I have cygwin as well, I tried to run it via cygwin, but it is the same - nothing happens.
I tried to run with both cygwin paths and windows paths, but both get ignored or treated as comments. From what I have read it should be working with cygwin. Could it be that it does not work since I have to call an exe file?
With:
$ ./indexer.exe sphinx.conf
I have tried to run it as perl script, bash script (via cygwin) and it gets ignored either way.
Is there a reliable way to run shebang lines on Windows? Or force cygwin to at least spit an error in my face... Even hacks are good since its just my development machine.
Any help is appreciated
All a shebang line does is tell the unix system() call what interpreter to use. If you specify indexer.exe then you are saying that you want it to use indexer.exe, so that is what it will use.
If you run Indexer.exe, indexer.exe will decide what to do.
Does Indexer.exe understand shebang lines? Or not?
Perl, as a convenience, will read the shebang line, and if it isn't Perl, it will and call the other program for you.
So maybe call Perl instead of Indexer, and it will do the right thing?
I’m writing a LaTeX package which needs to use \write18. Some of the shell commands I issue are system-specific (e.g. rm vs. del). Is there a way to determine what system I’m running on?
It would be enough to disambiguate between Windows and other (Unix-like) systems.
Take a look at the LaTeX ifplatform package. There was a lot of discussion about reliable methods across a range of platforms, and the current release works very well.
Not very good but it works for me
\newread\checkf
\immediate\openin\checkf = C:/WINDOWS/win.ini
\ifeof\checkf not windows \else windows\fi
\closein\checkf
If you can mark your OS with a file you can do
\IfFileExists{/etc/motd}{unix code here}{windows code here}
There's nothing special about the path /etc/motd; it's just likely to be found on a Unix system and unlikely on a Windows system. If you want to be dead certain, you should create a file specifically to mark the system in whatever way you want to identify it.
A friend of mine had the following idea which I’m now using. I’ve only tested it on Windows XP and OS X where it works fine. A bit flimsy on testing, admittedly, but in principle it should work fine almost anywhere else.
\newif\ifwindows
\immediate\write18{echo $SHELL > \jobname.os}
\newread\#whichos
\immediate\openin\#whichos\jobname.os
\read\#whichos to \#whichosshell
\ifthenelse{\equal{\#whichosshell}{$SHELL }}
{\windowstrue}
{\windowsfalse}
\closein\#whichos
\ifwindows
\typeout{System detected: Windows}
\newcommand\DeleteFile[1]{\immediate\write18{del #1}}
\else
\typeout{System detected: Unix-like}
\newcommand\DeleteFile[1]{\immediate\write18{rm #1}}
\fi
% Cleanup.
\DeleteFile{\jobname.os}
The key here is that Windows won’t expand the $SHELL environment variable (any other variable would have done, really) so it will write the string $SHELL to the file literally.