How can I determine the interpreter that runs my bash shell? - linux

I was working on this tutorial here and I want to know the path so I can put it in my shell scripts on the top line as is good practice.
I was told this is not accurate:
echo "$SHELL"
What is the correct way to determine the path to the interpreter for shell scripts?
This is a shared hosting account and it is not obvious where it is located.
This is a follow up to a similar but not duplicate here.

You can use
which -a bash
to list all paths for the current user that point to a bash program.

Related

Using Bash environment variables from within a Perl script?

I am trying to run a Bash command from within my Perl program.
However Perl seems to be confusing my Bash $PWD environment variable as a Perl variable.
How can I make it just read it all as a string?
This is what I'm trying to run
my $path = /first/path;
`ln -s $path $PWD/second/path`
Those backticks runs the second line in Bash. Using System() produces the same problem.
Any ideas?
There are two queries here, on use of Bash variables and on running external commands.
There is the %ENV hash in Perl, with environment variables
perl -wE'say $ENV{PWD}'
However, you are often better off getting the equivalent within the script, as things may have a subtly different meaning for the script or change as the script runs.
More importantly, using shell commands exposes you to all kinds of potential problems with quoting, shell injection, and interpretation. For instance, the command you show is dangerous, as outlined in Charles Duffy comment. It is in principle better to use Perl's rich functionality. See for example
Executing system commands safely while coding in Perl
Using system commands in Perl instead of built in
libraries/functions [duplicate]
for a sober, and detailed, account of advantages.
In case you do need to run external commands, it is best to avoid the shell altogether, for example by using the multi-argument form of system. If you need the output of the command as well there are various modules in Perl that provide that. See links below.
If you also need to use the shell's capabilities, instead of quoting everything just right in order for the shell to receive what it needs better use a ready tool like String::ShellQuote.
Some examples:
How to use both pipes and prevent shell expansion in perl system function?
Perl is respecting '<' as a regular character rather an output redirection
How to pipe the content of a variable as STDIN in a qx{} statement in Perl?
Perl system command with multiple parameters output to file.
Note that qx operator (backticks) uses /bin/sh, which may or may not get relegated to Bash. So if you want Bash you need system('/bin/bash', '-c', $cmd), where $cmd need be built carefully to avoid problems. See the links with examples.
Here is a full example related to the objective behind the question.
Your program's working directory may be other than expected depending on how it's started. For one, it changes after chdir. I don't know your exact intent with PWD, but in Perl there are core Cwd::cwd and FindBin with $RealBin, for the current working directory and for the directory where the script resides (generally different things).
To create a symbolic link to $path, with the relative path following the current working directory
use warnings;
use strict;
use Cwd qw(cwd);
my $cwd = cwd;
my $path = '/first/path';
symlink($path, "$cwd/second/path") or die "Can't make a symlink: $!";
If the path is meant to be the script's location use $RealBin from FindBin instead of cwd.
Note that with symlink you cannot pass a directory instead of a link name. See this page.

Import PATH environment variable into Bash script launched with cron

When creating Bash scripts, I have always had a line right at the start defining the PATH environment variable. I recently discovered that this doesn't make the script very portable as the PATH variable is different for different versions of Linux (in my case, I moved the script from Arch Linux to Ubuntu and received errors as various executables weren't in the same places).
Is it possible to copy the PATH environment variable defined by the login shell into the current Bash script?
EDIT:
I see that my question has caused some confusion resulting in some thinking that I want to change the PATH environment variable of the login shell with a bash script, which is the exact opposite of what I want.
This is what I currently have at the top of one of my Bash scripts:
#!/bin/bash
PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/bin/site_perl:/usr/bin/vendor_perl:/usr/bin/core_perl
# Test if an internet connection is present
wget -O /dev/null google.com
I want to replace that second line with something that copies the value of PATH from the login shell into the script environment:
#!/bin/bash
PATH=$(command that copies value of PATH from login shell)
# Test if an internet connection is present
wget -O /dev/null google.com
EDIT 2: Sorry for the big omission on my part. I forgot to mention that the scripts in question are being run on a schedule through cron. Cron creates it's own environment for running the scripts which does not use the environment variables of the login shell or modify them. I just tried running the following script in cron:
#!/bin/bash
echo $PATH >> /home/user/output.txt
The result is as follows. As you can see, the PATH variable used by cron is different to the login shell:
user#ubuntu_router:~$ cat output.txt
/usr/bin:/bin
user#ubuntu_router:~$ echo $PATH
/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games:/usr/local/games
Don't touch the user's PATH at all unless you have a specific reason. Not doing anything will (basically) accomplish what you ask.
You don't have to do anything to get the user's normal PATH since every process inherits the PATH and all other environment variables automatically.
If you need to add something nonstandard to the PATH, the usual approach is to prepend (or append) the new directory to the user's existing PATH, like so:
PATH=/opt/your/random/dir:$PATH
The environment of cron jobs is pretty close to the system's "default" (for some definition of "default") though interactive shells may generally run with a less constrained environment. But again, the fix for that is to add any missing directories to the current value at the beginning of the script. Adding directories which don't exist on this particular system is harmless, as is introducing duplicate directories.
I've managed to find the answer to my question:
PATH=$PATH:$(sed -n '/PATH=/s/^.*=// ; s/\"//gp' '/etc/environment')
This command will grab the value assigned to PATH by Linux from the environment file and append it to the PATH used by Cron.
I used the following resources to help find the answer:
How to grep for contents after pattern?
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EnvironmentVariables#System-wide_environment_variables

How do I get a bash script working on FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Linux without modifying it?

Sorry, the headline might be a bit irritating, but I didn't know anything better. Anyway, I want a bash script to work on FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Linux without modifying it, but bash isn't located at the same place in Linux and BSD.
So, if I write #!/bin/bash then it won't work on BSD, because the bash shell is located in /usr/local/bin/bash there. Is there any solution to get this script working on both?
Or do I really need to ship two scripts with different paths...?
Using env in the shebang (#!/usr/bin/env bash) should make the script OS agnostic.
I like the answer about using #!/usr/bin/env bash
It is an interesting and excellent answer, but that would only work if bash is in the path.
Another option might be to use #!/bin/sh which is the most universally compatible shell location.
Then, have the script do something in sh, such as check where bash is installed (if bash is even installed). Another option might be to have bash exist to both locations. Making another installation may sound like overkill, but this goal could be accomplished as simply as creating a hard link so that bash actually exists in both locations.

Why do you need to put #!/bin/bash at the beginning of a script file?

I have made Bash scripts before and they all ran fine without #!/bin/bash at the beginning.
What's the point of putting it in? Would things be any different?
Also, how do you pronounce #? I know that ! is pronounced as "bang."
How is #! pronounced?
It's a convention so the *nix shell knows what kind of interpreter to run.
For example, older flavors of ATT defaulted to sh (the Bourne shell), while older versions of BSD defaulted to csh (the C shell).
Even today (where most systems run bash, the "Bourne Again Shell"), scripts can be in bash, python, perl, ruby, PHP, etc, etc. For example, you might see #!/bin/perl or #!/bin/perl5.
PS:
The exclamation mark (!) is affectionately called "bang". The shell comment symbol (#) is sometimes called "hash".
PPS:
Remember - under *nix, associating a suffix with a file type is merely a convention, not a "rule". An executable can be a binary program, any one of a million script types and other things as well. Hence the need for #!/bin/bash.
To be more precise the shebang #!, when it is the first two bytes of an executable (x mode) file, is interpreted by the execve(2) system call (which execute programs). But POSIX specification for execve don't mention the shebang.
It must be followed by a file path of an interpreter executable (which BTW could even be relative, but most often is absolute).
A nice trick (or perhaps not so nice one) to find an interpreter (e.g. python) in the user's $PATH is to use the env program (always at /usr/bin/env on all Linux) like e.g.
#!/usr/bin/env python
Any ELF executable can be an interpreter. You could even use #!/bin/cat or #!/bin/true if you wanted to! (but that would be often useless)
It's called a shebang. In unix-speak, # is called sharp (like in music) or hash (like hashtags on twitter), and ! is called bang. (You can actually reference your previous shell command with !!, called bang-bang). So when put together, you get haSH-BANG, or shebang.
The part after the #! tells Unix what program to use to run it. If it isn't specified, it will try with bash (or sh, or zsh, or whatever your $SHELL variable is) but if it's there it will use that program. Plus, # is a comment in most languages, so the line gets ignored in the subsequent execution.
Every distribution has a default shell. Bash is the default on the majority of the systems. If you happen to work on a system that has a different default shell, then the scripts might not work as intended if they are written specific for Bash.
Bash has evolved over the years taking code from ksh and sh.
Adding #!/bin/bash as the first line of your script, tells the OS to invoke the specified shell to execute the commands that follow in the script.
#! is often referred to as a "hash-bang", "she-bang" or "sha-bang".
The shebang is a directive to the loader to use the program which is specified after the #! as the interpreter for the file in question when you try to execute it. So, if you try to run a file called foo.sh which has #!/bin/bash at the top, the actual command that runs is /bin/bash foo.sh. This is a flexible way of using different interpreters for different programs. This is something implemented at the system level and the user level API is the shebang convention.
It's also worth knowing that the shebang is a magic number - a human readable one that identifies the file as a script for the given interpreter.
Your point about it "working" even without the shebang is only because the program in question is a shell script written for the same shell as the one you are using. For example, you could very well write a javascript file and then put a #! /usr/bin/js (or something similar) to have a javascript "Shell script".
The operating system takes default shell to run your shell script. so mentioning shell path at the beginning of script, you are asking the OS to use that particular shell. It is also useful for portability.
It is called a shebang. It consists of a number sign and an exclamation point character (#!), followed by the full path to the interpreter such as /bin/bash. All scripts under UNIX and Linux execute using the interpreter specified on a first line.
Bash standards for “Bourne-Again shell” is just one type of many available
shells in Linux.
A shell is a command line interpreter that accepts and runs commands.
Bash is often the default shell in most Linux distributions. This is why bash is
synonymous to shell.
The shell scripts often have almost the same syntaxes, but they also differ sometimes. For example, array index starts at 1 in Zsh instead of 0 in bash. A script
written for Zsh shell won’t work the same in bash if it has arrays.
To avoid unpleasant surprises, you should tell the interpreter that your shell script
is written for bash shell. How do you do that?
simply begin your bash script into #!/bin/bash
Also you will see some other parameters after #!/bin/bash,
for example
#!/bin/bash -v -x
read this to get more idea.
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/124272/what-do-the-arguments-v-and-x-mean-to-bash .
It can be useful to someone that uses a different system that does not have that library readily available. If that is not declared and you have some functions in your script that are not supported by that system, you should declare #/bin/bash. I've ran into this problem before at work and now I just include it as a practice.

Scripting on Linux

I am trying to create a script that will run a program on each file in a list. I have been trying to do this using a .csh file (I have no clue if this is the best way), and I started with something as simple as hello world
echo "hello world"
The problem is that I cannot execute this script, or verify that it works correctly. (I was trying to do ./testscript.csh which is obviously wrong). I haven't been able to find anything that really explains how to run C Scripts, and I'm guessing there's a better way to do this too. What do I need to change to get this to work?
You need to mark it as executable; Unix doesn't execute things arbitrarily based on extension.
chmod +x testscript.csh
Also, I strongly recommend using sh or bash instead of csh, or you will soon learn about the idiosyncrasies of csh's looping and control flow constructs (some things only work inside them if done a particular way, in particular with the single-line versions things are very limited).
You can use ./testscript.csh. You will however need to make it executable first:
chmod u+x testscript.csh
Which means set testscript to have execute permissions for the user (who ever the file is owned by - which in this case should be yourself!)
Also to tell the OS that this is a csh script you will need put
#! /path/to/csh
on the first line (where /path/to/csh is the full path to csh on your system. You can find that out by issuing the command which csh).
That should give you the behvaiour you want.
EDIT As discussed in some of the comments, you may want to choose an alternative shell to C Shell (csh). It is not the friendliest one for scripting.
You have several options.
You can run the script from within your current shell. If you're running csh or tcsh, the syntax is source testscript.csh. If you're running sh, bash, ksh, etc., the syntax is . ./testscript.sh. Note that I've changed the file name suffix; source or . runs the commands in the named file in your current shell. If you have any shell-specific syntax, this won't work unless your interactive shell matches the one used by the script. If the script is very simple (just a sequence of simple commands), that might not matter.
You can make the script an executable program. (I'm going to repeat some of what others have already written.) Add a "shebang" as the first line. For a csh script, use #!/bin/csh -f. The -f avoids running commands in your own personal startup scripts (.cshrc et al), which saves time and makes it more likely that others will be able to use it. Or, for a sh script (recommended), used #!/bin/sh (no -f, it has a completely different meaning). In either case, run chmod +x the_script, then ./the_script.
There's a trick I often use when I want to perform some moderately complex action. Say I want to delete some, but not all, files in the current directory, but the criterion can't be expressed conveniently in a single command. I might run ls > tmp.sh, then edit tmp.h with my favorite editor (mine happens to be vim). Then I go through the list of files and delete all the ones that I want to leave alone. Once I've done that, I can replace each file name with a command to remove it; in vim, :%s/.*/rm -f &/. I add a #!/bin/sh at the top save it, chmod +x foo.sh, then ./foo.sh. (If some of the file names might have special characters, I can use :%s/.*/rm -f '&'/.)

Resources