kdevelop provides this AppImage binary:
wget -O KDevelop.AppImage https://download.kde.org/stable/kdevelop/5.1.1/bin/linux/KDevelop-5.1.1-x86_64.AppImage
chmod +x KDevelop.AppImage
./KDevelop.AppImage
It works well. So I want to make a soft link called kd to that binary in /usr/bin, eg:
/usr/bin/sudo ln -s KDevelop-5.1.1-x86_64.AppImage kd
Now if I run kd file1, I'd expect that it would open a file name file1 in the current folder, but it always tries to open a file name file1 in my home folder - which is not where it should be.
Is there some way to fix this issue?
Some possible causes:
The application always assumes that you want to open files in your home directory, effectively or literally prepending $HOME to the path. This would be a bug in any *nix program, and should be reported.
The application behaves differently when $(basename "$0") is not KDevelop.AppImage (what #Scheff said).
You are actually running a different kd.
Possible workarounds/investigations:
Pass the full path to the file on the command line. If it tries to open /home/you//full/path/you/provided it is obviously buggy, and you have a test case. If it does not, then there might be some gotcha to what your $PWD actually is. Try checking its value before running.
Symlink with the same name, using sudo ln -s KDevelop-5.1.1-x86_64.AppImage /usr/bin, and try running that. If it behaves the same, you've at least proven that the symlink is not the problem.
Run type -a kd and verify that your /usr/bin/kd comes up first. If not there might be an alias or shell built-in which takes precedence.
That said, what is the actual error message?
Related
I know how to run the script I created. But it is a matter of pain that I need to change directory through terminal and run my scripts.
I need to run the slowloris script, that has into Desktop, now change directory to Desktop and run.
Then I have another in root; now change the directory to root and run that.
My question is:
How can I run any shell-script by just typing ./script from any path like we start Metasploit from any path by giving msfconsole from any path.
One option is simply to type the path to the script:
~/Desktop/script
This works fine, but gets a bit unwieldy.
This is what the PATH environment variable is for. And it is what $HOME/bin is for.
Create yourself a directory $HOME/bin. Put all your executable scripts in it (make them executable with chmod +x script if need be††). This way, there's one place to look for the scripts you want to run.
Add $HOME/bin to your PATH. I put mine at the front: PATH="$HOME/bin:$PATH, but you could put it at the back if you prefer.
Update your .profile or .bash_profile (or possibly .bashrc) file to set PATH. Beware of a continually growing PATH, though.
As tripleee noted, once the command is installed in a directory on PATH, you no longer type ./script, but just script. This is exactly like you type ls and not /bin/ls, etc. Once the program is installed in a directory on your PATH, it is (for many purposes) indistinguishable from a system-provided command.
I have about 500 scripts and programs in my $HOME/bin directory.
Note that this doesn't require any special privileges. If you have administrator access to your machine and you think other users might find your commands useful, then you could install the scripts/programs in one of the system-provided directories on your PATH. However, it is usually best not to add programs to any of:
/bin
/usr/bin
/sbin
/usr/sbin
There is often/usually /usr/local/bin which is a suitable place for widely used commands not provided by the system.
†† It would be better to use chmod a+x,go-w script; your scripts should not be writable by other people. You could even simply use chmod 555 script or chmod 755 script. I tend to keep my scripts non-writable. That way, I have to go through a formal change process with the version control system. It means there's less danger of uncontrolled changes.
You have to copy or link the script into a directory that is on the $PATH. Usually /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin/ are on the path so these are good locations to link or copy the script to.
ln -s /path/to/your/script /usr/local/bin
If you are not root you will either need to sudo that command or run it as the root user.
I want to add a small script to the linux PATH so I don't have to actually run it where it's physically placed on disk.
The script is quite simple is about giving apt-get access through a proxy I made it like this:
#!/bin/bash
array=( $# )
len=${#array[#]}
_args=${array[#]:1:$len}
sudo http_proxy="http://user:password#server:port" apt-get $_args
Then I saved this as apt-proxy.sh, set it to +x (chmod) and everything is working fine when I am in the directory where this file is placed.
My question is : how to add this apt-proxy to PATH so I can actually call it as if it where the real apt-get ? [from anywhere]
Looking for command line only solutions, if you know how to do by GUI its nice, but not what I am looking for.
Try this:
Save the script as apt-proxy (without the .sh extension) in some directory, like ~/bin.
Add ~/bin to your PATH, typing export PATH=$PATH:~/bin
If you need it permanently, add that last line in your ~/.bashrc. If you're using zsh, then add it to ~/.zshrc instead.
Then you can just run apt-proxy with your arguments and it will run anywhere.
Note that if you export the PATH variable in a specific window it won't update in other bash instances.
You want to define that directory to the path variable, not the actual binary e.g.
PATH=$MYDIR:$PATH
where MYDIR is defined as the directory containing your binary e.g.
PATH=/Users/username/bin:$PATH
You should put this in your startup script e.g. .bashrc such that it runs each time a shell process is invoked.
Note that order is important, and the PATH is evaluated such that if a script matching your name is found in an earlier entry in the path variable, then that's the one you'll execute. So you could name your script as apt-get and put it earlier in the path. I wouldn't do that since it's confusing. You may want to investigate shell aliases instead.
I note also that you say it works fine from your current directory. If by that you mean you have the current directory in your path (.) then that's a potential security risk. Someone could put some trojan variant of a common utility (e.g. ls) in a directory, then get you to cd to that directory and run it inadvertently.
As a final step, after following the solution form proposed by #jlhonora (https://stackoverflow.com/a/20054809/6311511), change the permissions of the files in the folder "~/bin". You can use this:
chmod -R 755 ~/bin
make an alias to the executable into the ~/.bash_profile file and then use it from anywhere or you can source the directory containing the executables you need run from anywhere and that will do the trick for you.
adding to #jlhonora
your changes in ~./bashrc or ~./zshrc won't reflect until you do
source ~./zshrc or source ./bashrc , or restart your pc
In the installation guide of some soft, user is told to run this
sudo ln -s /opt/local/somesoft/somsoft* /opt/local/bin
Is this command dangerous ? Should /opt/local/bin be prevented from calling something else tha n itself ?
This command does few things
sudo gives root permissions to the 'ln' binary
ln is instructed to go through all files matching pattern /opt/local/somesoft/somsoft*
for every such file it tries to create symbolic link in /opt/local/bin directory
this created symbolic link will have the same name as the file just being processed
Your first question is, is it dangerous? Most probably not, there are few things which might go wrong
your $PATH environment contains some strange directory, so instead of calling /usr/bin/ln (as was the original intention I believe) you wold be tricked into calling some different executable. For example if your PATH=.:/tmp:/usr/bin, 'ln' is first searched in your current directory, then in /tmp and then in /usr/bin. And it's called with superuser permissions ...
there are no such files as /opt/local/somesoft/somsoft* . In such case ln will create symbolic link '/opt/local/bin/somsoft*' (including the star in it's name). That's probably not what you wanted
/opt/local/bin already contains the files with the same names as /opt/local/somesoft/somsoft* . In such case ln will not create new files there (is it good or bad? that is the question)
You don't have /opt/local/bin . In such cases there are several ways of how the command fails (depending whether you have /opt/local directory and how many files match the pattern /opt/local/somesoft/somsoft*)
Your second question does not make much sense. /opt/local/bin is a directory, and directory can't "call" anything. So it can't be prevented to do so. If you ask whether the symbolic links should be created there, I would say why not. The whole idea behind the command is to
install somesoft into special directory so that you won't pollute your /usr/bin or any other common directory
to be able to run the commands without the need of specifying every time full path /opt/local/somesoft/somsoft... you may want to create symbolic links in /opt/local/bin. And make sure that your /opt/local/bin is in your directory.
I tried running a script file using bash but it showed an error
bash-3.2$ example.sh : command not found
I also tried
ls -l example.sh
I found that it was not executable, so I used
sudo chmod 777 example.sh
I again tried running it but same error was coming. I double checked that I am in the same folder as the file using ls. But still I am not able to execute the script file.
I finally tried making a dummy script file and running it , and found the same error
I think there is some problem with BASH. Can some one help me with what is the problem?
I am working on redhat, bash was already installed in my system
Since I am newbie on linux any help would be appreciated
bash search for commands in your $PATH. Apparently the current directory, ., is not in your $PATH. (This is a good thing; having . in your $PATH is insecure.)
You'll need to specify a directory name. Just type:
./example.sh
Incidentally, doing:
sudo chmod 777 example.sh
is two kinds of overkill. First, you don't need to use sudo; use sudo only when you actually need to. Presumably your personal account owns the file, so you can just use chmod directly.
Second, 777 is way too permissive. It allows anyone on the system to read, execute, or modify example.sh. (If you're the only person on the system it may not matter much, but it's still a bad habit.) Typically you should use 755 for directories and for files that need to be executable, and 644 for files that don't need to be executable.
Or just use
chmod +x example.sh
to set execute permission (your umask will prevent that from setting the permissions too loosely).
. (the current directory) is probably not on your path. Try ./example.sh or bash example.sh. You could also add . to your PATH environment variable, but that's generally frowned upon.
Your bash PATH probably doesn't include ., try running it by typing:
./example.sh
When you type a command, your shell searches your path to try to find the command, if the current directory (e.g. .) isn't part of the path, the script that you are trying to run won't be found. You'd have to explicitly give it the path to where this command is. And since it's in your current directory, you can just add ./ in front of the command.
first confirm the bash path
to check the path of bash use:
which bash
if you get "/bin/bash"
then add
#!/bin/bash
...
...
or whatever is the path on first line of your bash script
I have a file called x.sh that I want to execute. If I run:
x.sh
then I get:
x.sh: command not found
If I run:
./x.sh
then it runs correctly. Why do I have to type in ./ first?
Because the current directory is not into the PATH environment variable by default, and executables without a path qualification are searched only inside the directory specified by PATH. You can change this behavior by adding . to the end of PATH, but it's not common practice, you'll just get used to this UNIXism.
The idea behind this is that, if executables were searched first inside the current directory, a malicious user could put inside his home directory an executable named e.g. ls or grep or some other commonly used command, tricking the administrator to use it, maybe with superuser powers. On the other hand, this problem is not much felt if you put . at the end of PATH, since in that case the system directories are searched first.
But: our malicious user could still create his dangerous scripts named as common typos of often used commands, e.g. sl for ls (protip: bind it to Steam Locomotive and you won't be tricked anyway :D).
So you see that it's still better to be safe that, if you type an executable name without a path qualification, you are sure you're running something from system directories (and thus supposedly safe).
Because the current directory is normally not included in the default PATH, for security reasons: by NOT looking in the current directory all kinds of nastiness that could be caused by planting a malicious program with the name of a legitimate utility can be avoided. As an example, imagine someone manages to plant a script called ls in your directory, and that script executes rm *.
If you wish to include the current directory in your path, and you're using bash as your default shell, you can add the path via your ~/.bashrc file.
export PATH=$PATH:.
Based on the explanation above, the risk posed by rogue programs is reduced by looking in . last, so all well known legitimate programs will be found before . is checked.
You could also modify the systemwide settings via /etc/profile but that's probably not a good idea.
Because current directory is not in PATH (unlike cmd in Windows). It is a security feature so that malicious scripts in your current directory are not accidentally run.
Though it is not advisable, to satisfy curiosity, you can add . to the PATH and then you will see that x.sh will work.
If you don't explicitly specify a directory then the shell searches through the directories listed in your $PATH for the named executable. If your $PATH does not include . then the current directory is not searched.
$ echo $PATH
/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/X11/bin
This is on purpose. If the current directory were searched then the command you type could potentially change based on what directory you're in. This would allow a malicious user to place a binary named ls or cp into directories you frequent and trick you into running a different program.
$ cat /tmp/ls
rm -rf ~/*
$ cd /tmp
$ ls
*kaboom*
I strongly recommend you not add . to your $PATH. You will quickly get used to typing ./, it's no big deal.
You can't execute your file by typing simply
x.sh
because the present working directory isn't in your $PATH. To see your present working directory, type
$ pwd
To see your $PATH, type
$ echo $PATH
To add the current directory to your $PATH for this session, type
$ PATH=$PATH:.
To add it permanently, edit the file .profile in your home directory.