When running scripts in bash, I have to write ./ in the beginning:
$ ./manage.py syncdb
If I don't, I get an error message:
$ manage.py syncdb
-bash: manage.py: command not found
What is the reason for this? I thought . is an alias for current folder, and therefore these two calls should be equivalent.
I also don't understand why I don't need ./ when running applications, such as:
user:/home/user$ cd /usr/bin
user:/usr/bin$ git
(which runs without ./)
Because on Unix, usually, the current directory is not in $PATH.
When you type a command the shell looks up a list of directories, as specified by the PATH variable. The current directory is not in that list.
The reason for not having the current directory on that list is security.
Let's say you're root and go into another user's directory and type sl instead of ls. If the current directory is in PATH, the shell will try to execute the sl program in that directory (since there is no other sl program). That sl program might be malicious.
It works with ./ because POSIX specifies that a command name that contain a / will be used as a filename directly, suppressing a search in $PATH. You could have used full path for the exact same effect, but ./ is shorter and easier to write.
EDIT
That sl part was just an example. The directories in PATH are searched sequentially and when a match is made that program is executed. So, depending on how PATH looks, typing a normal command may or may not be enough to run the program in the current directory.
When bash interprets the command line, it looks for commands in locations described in the environment variable $PATH. To see it type:
echo $PATH
You will have some paths separated by colons. As you will see the current path . is usually not in $PATH. So Bash cannot find your command if it is in the current directory. You can change it by having:
PATH=$PATH:.
This line adds the current directory in $PATH so you can do:
manage.py syncdb
It is not recommended as it has security issue, plus you can have weird behaviours, as . varies upon the directory you are in :)
Avoid:
PATH=.:$PATH
As you can “mask” some standard command and open the door to security breach :)
Just my two cents.
Your script, when in your home directory will not be found when the shell looks at the $PATH environment variable to find your script.
The ./ says 'look in the current directory for my script rather than looking at all the directories specified in $PATH'.
When you include the '.' you are essentially giving the "full path" to the executable bash script, so your shell does not need to check your PATH variable. Without the '.' your shell will look in your PATH variable (which you can see by running echo $PATH to see if the command you typed lives in any of the folders on your PATH. If it doesn't (as is the case with manage.py) it says it can't find the file. It is considered bad practice to include the current directory on your PATH, which is explained reasonably well here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/faq/part2/section-13.html
On *nix, unlike Windows, the current directory is usually not in your $PATH variable. So the current directory is not searched when executing commands. You don't need ./ for running applications because these applications are in your $PATH; most likely they are in /bin or /usr/bin.
This question already has some awesome answers, but I wanted to add that, if your executable is on the PATH, and you get very different outputs when you run
./executable
to the ones you get if you run
executable
(let's say you run into error messages with the one and not the other), then the problem could be that you have two different versions of the executable on your machine: one on the path, and the other not.
Check this by running
which executable
and
whereis executable
It fixed my issues...I had three versions of the executable, only one of which was compiled correctly for the environment.
Rationale for the / POSIX PATH rule
The rule was mentioned at: Why do you need ./ (dot-slash) before executable or script name to run it in bash? but I would like to explain why I think that is a good design in more detail.
First, an explicit full version of the rule is:
if the path contains / (e.g. ./someprog, /bin/someprog, ./bin/someprog): CWD is used and PATH isn't
if the path does not contain / (e.g. someprog): PATH is used and CWD isn't
Now, suppose that running:
someprog
would search:
relative to CWD first
relative to PATH after
Then, if you wanted to run /bin/someprog from your distro, and you did:
someprog
it would sometimes work, but others it would fail, because you might be in a directory that contains another unrelated someprog program.
Therefore, you would soon learn that this is not reliable, and you would end up always using absolute paths when you want to use PATH, therefore defeating the purpose of PATH.
This is also why having relative paths in your PATH is a really bad idea. I'm looking at you, node_modules/bin.
Conversely, suppose that running:
./someprog
Would search:
relative to PATH first
relative to CWD after
Then, if you just downloaded a script someprog from a git repository and wanted to run it from CWD, you would never be sure that this is the actual program that would run, because maybe your distro has a:
/bin/someprog
which is in you PATH from some package you installed after drinking too much after Christmas last year.
Therefore, once again, you would be forced to always run local scripts relative to CWD with full paths to know what you are running:
"$(pwd)/someprog"
which would be extremely annoying as well.
Another rule that you might be tempted to come up with would be:
relative paths use only PATH, absolute paths only CWD
but once again this forces users to always use absolute paths for non-PATH scripts with "$(pwd)/someprog".
The / path search rule offers a simple to remember solution to the about problem:
slash: don't use PATH
no slash: only use PATH
which makes it super easy to always know what you are running, by relying on the fact that files in the current directory can be expressed either as ./somefile or somefile, and so it gives special meaning to one of them.
Sometimes, is slightly annoying that you cannot search for some/prog relative to PATH, but I don't see a saner solution to this.
When the script is not in the Path its required to do so. For more info read http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/sect_02_01.html
All has great answer on the question, and yes this is only applicable when running it on the current directory not unless you include the absolute path. See my samples below.
Also, the (dot-slash) made sense to me when I've the command on the child folder tmp2 (/tmp/tmp2) and it uses (double dot-slash).
SAMPLE:
[fifiip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ ./StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ /tmp/StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ mkdir tmp2
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp]$ cd tmp2/
[fifi#ip-172-31-17-12 tmp2]$ ../StackO.sh
Hello Stack Overflow
https://github.com/ninja-build/ninja/releases
I have downloaded the ninja-win.zip folder and extracted it. When I open it, there is a single .exe file in the entire folder. When I double click it a cmd window flashes for a split second. I have also tried running it as administrator, but the same thing happens. What I don't understand is, what am I expected to do with this .exe file?
You must open a terminal (cmd.exe on Windows) and type something like ninja -f /path/to/buld/file. You may also wish to modify the PATH environment variable so that Windows knows where to find the Ninja executable, depending on your setup.
You can simple download ninja.exe file from this Link
https://github.com/ninja-build/ninja/releases
After that you just have to add the path to your ninja.exe file to your windows environment variables and then you can use ninja commands from anywhere in windows.
1. Open cmd in your Project Directory
2. There are guides on the internet on where to save the Ninja.exe so that it'll be callable in Cmd without specifying directory. Either follow them or:
i, Specify Directory when Calling Ninja. Putting "ninja" in Cmd actually calls Ninja.exe and is the same as something like "C:\users\user1\downloads\Ninja". or:
ii, Save Ninja.exe in the same directory as Project.
3. proceed with rest of the command.
Therefore the Final Command would be:
"C:\users\user\downloads\Ninja.exe" -f "D:\Projects\Project1"
I'm the author of a utilty that makes compressing projects using zip a bit easier, especially when you have to compress regularly, such as for updating projects submitted to an application store (like Chrome's Web Store).
I'm attempting to make quite a few improvements, but have run into an issue, described below.
A Quick Overview
My utility's command format is similar to command OPTIONS DEST DIR1 {DIR2 DIR3 DIR4...}. It works by running zip -r DEST.zip DIR1; a fairly simple process. The benefit to my utility, however, is the ability to use a predetermined file (think .gitignore) to ignore specific files/directories, or files/directories which match a pattern.
It's pretty simple -- if the "ignorefile" exists in a target directory (DIR1, DIR2, DIR3, etc), my utility will add exclusions to the zip -r DEST.zip DIR1 command using the pattern -x some_file or -x some_dir/*.
The Issue
I am running into an issue with directory exclusion, however, and I can't quite figure out why (this is probably be because I am still quite the sh novice). I'll run through some examples:
Let's say that I want to ignore two things in my project directory: .git/* and .gitignore. Running command foo.zip project_dir builds the following command:
zip -r foo.zip project -x project/.git/\* -x project/.gitignore
Woohoo! Success! Well... not quite.
In this example, .gitignore is not added to the compressed output file, foo.zip. The directory, .git/*, and all of it's subdirectories (and files) are added to the compressed output file.
Manually running the command:
zip -r foo.zip project_dir -x project/.git/\* -x project/.gitignore
Works as expected, of course, so naturally I am pretty puzzled as to why my identical, but dynamically-built command, does not work.
Attempted Resolutions
I have attempted a few different methods of resolving this to no avail:
Removing -x project/.git/\* from the command, and instead adding each subdirectory and file within that directory, such as -x project/.git/config -x project/.git/HEAD, etc (including children of subdirectories)
Removing the backslash before the asterisk, so that the resulting exclusion option within the command is -x project/.git/*
Bashing my head on the keyboard in angst (I'm really surprised this didn't work, it usually does)
Some notes
My utility uses /bin/sh; I would prefer to keep it that way for maximum compatibility.
I am aware of the git archive feature -- my use of .git/* and .gitignore in the above example is simply as an example; my utility is not dependent on git nor is used exclusively for projects which are git repositories.
I suspected the problem would be in the evaluation of the generated command, since you said the same command when executed directly did right.
So as the comment section says, I think you already found the correct solution. This happens because if you run that variable directly, some things like globs can be expanded directly, instead of passed to the command. And arguments may be messed up, depending on the situation.
Yes, in that case:
eval $COMMAND
is the way to go.
I did a ctags -R on my project which is in c++, in the directory /project/ntopng. Now, when I start cscope using cscope -R and search for main.cpp, it opens up. But, when I hit ctrl-] on #include "ntop-includes.h" in main.cpp, the error message is tag not found. The header file is inside a sub-directory in /project/ntopng/include. But, ctags -R is recursive so why is it that I am getting an error? I am using Ubuntu 12.04 with the latest version of ctags and cscope. Thank You.
I have given the below answer for Ubuntu 12.04
1. Open any file with vim
2. type :echo &tags ,It will show what path vim is using for tags file.
If it is not the expected tag file path type:
:set tags=path_to_your_tag_file (ex /project/ntopng/tags)
Remember it is valid for the current session only, Now if permanent changes required there are two options.
For All users (requires root privileges) --
1. cd /etc/vim
2. vim vimrc
3. Go to end and add set tags+=tags;path_to_your_tag_file
For the individual user:
1. cd ~
2. vim .vimrc (This file may not exists in that case newly created)
3. set tags+=tags;path_to_your_tag_file
Let me know if it worked for you.
I'm creating a simple RPM installer, I just have to copy files to a directory structure I create in the %install process.
The %install process is fine, I create the following folder /opt/company/application/ with the command mkdir -p %{buildroot}/opt/company/%{name} and then I proceed to copy the files and subdirectories from my package. I've tried to install it and it works.
The doubt I have comes when uninstalling. I want to remove the folder /opt/company/application/ and I thought you're supposed to use %{buildroot} anywhere when referencing the install location. Because my understanding is the user might have a different structure and you can't assume that rmdir /opt/company/%{name}/ will work. Using that command in the %postun section deletes succesfully the directories whereas using rmdir ${buildroot}/opt/company/%{name} doesn't delete the folders.
My question is, shouldn't you be using ${buildroot} in the %postun in order to get the proper install location? If that's not the case, why?
Don't worry about it. If you claim the directory as your own in the %files section, RPM will handle it for you.
FYI, %{buildroot} probably won't exist on the target machine.