I read that the executables for the commands issued using exec() calls are supposed to be stored in directories that are part of the PATH variable.
Accordingly, I found the executables for ls, chmod, grep, cat in /bin.
However, I could not find the executable for cd.
Where is it located?
A process can only affect its own working directory. When an executable is executed by the shell it executes as a child process, so a cd executable (if one existed) would change that child process's working directory without affecting the parent process (the shell), hence the cd command must be implemented as a shell built-in that actually executes in the shell's own process.
cd is a shell built-in, unfortunately.
$ type cd
cd is a shell builtin
...from http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/whereis-cd-sudo-doesnt-find-cd-464767/
But you should be able to get it working with:
sh -c "cd /somedir; do something"
Not all utilities that you can execute at a shell prompt need actually exist as actual executables in the filesystem. They can also be so-called shell built-ins, which means – you guessed it – that they are built into the shell.
The Single Unix Specification does, in general, not specify whether a utility has to be provided as an executable or as a built-in, that is left as a private internal implementation detail to the OS vendor.
The only exceptions are the so-called special built-ins, which must be provided as built-ins, because they affect the behavior of the shell itself in a manner that regular executables (or even regular built-ins) can't (for example set, which sets variables that persist even after set exits). Those special built-ins are:
break
:
continue
.
eval
exec
exit
export
readonly
return
set
shift
times
trap
unset
Note that cd is not on that list, which means that cd is not a special built-in. In fact, according to the specification, it would be perfectly legal to implement cd as a regular executable. It's just not possible, for the reasons given by the other answers.
And if you scroll down to the non-normative section of the specification, i.e. to the part that is not officially part of the specification but only purely informational, you will find that fact explicitly mentioned:
Since cd affects the current shell execution environment, it is always provided as a shell regular built-in.
So, the specification doesn't require cd to be a built-in, but it's simply impossible to do otherwise.
Note that sometimes utilities are provided both as a built-in and as an executable. A good example is the time utility, which on a typical GNU system is provided both as an executable by the Coreutils package and as a shell regular built-in by Bash. This can lead to confusion, because when you do man time, you get the manpage of the time executable (the time builtin is documented in man builtins), but when you execute time you get the time built-in, which does not support the same features as the time executable whose manpage you just read. You have to explicitly run /usr/bin/time (or whatever path you installed Coreutils into) to get the executable.
According to this, cd is always a built-in command and never an executable:
Since cd affects the current shell execution environment, it is always provided as a shell regular built-in.
cd is part of the shell; an internal command. There is no binary for it.
The command cd is built-in in your command line shell. It could not affect the working directory of your shell otherwise.
I also searched the executable of "cd" and there is no such.
You can work with chdir (pathname) in C, it has the same effect.
Related
Should I put the shebang in my Python scripts? In what form?
#!/usr/bin/env python
or
#!/usr/local/bin/python
Are these equally portable? Which form is used most?
Note: the tornado project uses the shebang. On the other hand the Django project doesn't.
The shebang line in any script determines the script's ability to be executed like a standalone executable without typing python beforehand in the terminal or when double clicking it in a file manager (when configured properly). It isn't necessary but generally put there so when someone sees the file opened in an editor, they immediately know what they're looking at. However, which shebang line you use is important.
Correct usage for (defaults to version 3.latest) Python 3 scripts is:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
Correct usage for (defaults to version 2.latest) Python 2 scripts is:
#!/usr/bin/env python2
The following should not be used (except for the rare case that you are writing code which is compatible with both Python 2.x and 3.x):
#!/usr/bin/env python
The reason for these recommendations, given in PEP 394, is that python can refer either to python2 or python3 on different systems.
Also, do not use:
#!/usr/local/bin/python
"python may be installed at /usr/bin/python or /bin/python in those
cases, the above #! will fail."
―"#!/usr/bin/env python" vs "#!/usr/local/bin/python"
It's really just a matter of taste. Adding the shebang means people can invoke the script directly if they want (assuming it's marked as executable); omitting it just means python has to be invoked manually.
The end result of running the program isn't affected either way; it's just options of the means.
Should I put the shebang in my Python scripts?
Put a shebang into a Python script to indicate:
this module can be run as a script
whether it can be run only on python2, python3 or is it Python 2/3 compatible
on POSIX, it is necessary if you want to run the script directly without invoking python executable explicitly
Are these equally portable? Which form is used most?
If you write a shebang manually then always use #!/usr/bin/env python unless you have a specific reason not to use it. This form is understood even on Windows (Python launcher).
Note: installed scripts should use a specific python executable e.g., /usr/bin/python or /home/me/.virtualenvs/project/bin/python. It is bad if some tool breaks if you activate a virtualenv in your shell. Luckily, the correct shebang is created automatically in most cases by setuptools or your distribution package tools (on Windows, setuptools can generate wrapper .exe scripts automatically).
In other words, if the script is in a source checkout then you will probably see #!/usr/bin/env python. If it is installed then the shebang is a path to a specific python executable such as #!/usr/local/bin/python (NOTE: you should not write the paths from the latter category manually).
To choose whether you should use python, python2, or python3 in the shebang, see PEP 394 - The "python" Command on Unix-Like Systems:
... python should be used in the shebang line only for scripts that are
source compatible with both Python 2 and 3.
in preparation for an eventual change in the default version of
Python, Python 2 only scripts should either be updated to be source
compatible with Python 3 or else to use python2 in the shebang line.
If you have more than one version of Python and the script needs to run under a specific version, the she-bang can ensure the right one is used when the script is executed directly, for example:
#!/usr/bin/python2.7
Note the script could still be run via a complete Python command line, or via import, in which case the she-bang is ignored. But for scripts run directly, this is a decent reason to use the she-bang.
#!/usr/bin/env python is generally the better approach, but this helps with special cases.
Usually it would be better to establish a Python virtual environment, in which case the generic #!/usr/bin/env python would identify the correct instance of Python for the virtualenv.
The purpose of shebang is for the script to recognize the interpreter type when you want to execute the script from the shell.
Mostly, and not always, you execute scripts by supplying the interpreter externally.
Example usage: python-x.x script.py
This will work even if you don't have a shebang declarator.
Why first one is more "portable" is because, /usr/bin/env contains your PATH declaration which accounts for all the destinations where your system executables reside.
NOTE: Tornado doesn't strictly use shebangs, and Django strictly doesn't. It varies with how you are executing your application's main function.
ALSO: It doesn't vary with Python.
You should add a shebang if the script is intended to be executable. You should also install the script with an installing software that modifies the shebang to something correct so it will work on the target platform. Examples of this is distutils and Distribute.
Sometimes, if the answer is not very clear (I mean you cannot decide if yes or no), then it does not matter too much, and you can ignore the problem until the answer is clear.
The #! only purpose is for launching the script. Django loads the sources on its own and uses them. It never needs to decide what interpreter should be used. This way, the #! actually makes no sense here.
Generally, if it is a module and cannot be used as a script, there is no need for using the #!. On the other hand, a module source often contains if __name__ == '__main__': ... with at least some trivial testing of the functionality. Then the #! makes sense again.
One good reason for using #! is when you use both Python 2 and Python 3 scripts -- they must be interpreted by different versions of Python. This way, you have to remember what python must be used when launching the script manually (without the #! inside). If you have a mixture of such scripts, it is a good idea to use the #! inside, make them executable, and launch them as executables (chmod ...).
When using MS-Windows, the #! had no sense -- until recently. Python 3.3 introduces a Windows Python Launcher (py.exe and pyw.exe) that reads the #! line, detects the installed versions of Python, and uses the correct or explicitly wanted version of Python. As the extension can be associated with a program, you can get similar behaviour in Windows as with execute flag in Unix-based systems.
When I installed Python 3.6.1 on Windows 7 recently, it also installed the Python Launcher for Windows, which is supposed to handle the shebang line. However, I found that the Python Launcher did not do this: the shebang line was ignored and Python 2.7.13 was always used (unless I executed the script using py -3).
To fix this, I had to edit the Windows registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Python.File\shell\open\command. This still had the value
"C:\Python27\python.exe" "%1" %*
from my earlier Python 2.7 installation. I modified this registry key value to
"C:\Windows\py.exe" "%1" %*
and the Python Launcher shebang line processing worked as described above.
Answer: Only if you plan to make it a command-line executable script.
Here is the procedure:
Start off by verifying the proper shebang string to use:
which python
Take the output from that and add it (with the shebang #!) in the first line.
On my system it responds like so:
$which python
/usr/bin/python
So your shebang will look like:
#!/usr/bin/python
After saving, it will still run as before since python will see that first line as a comment.
python filename.py
To make it a command, copy it to drop the .py extension.
cp filename.py filename
Tell the file system that this will be executable:
chmod +x filename
To test it, use:
./filename
Best practice is to move it somewhere in your $PATH so all you need to type is the filename itself.
sudo cp filename /usr/sbin
That way it will work everywhere (without the ./ before the filename)
If you have different modules installed and need to use a specific
python install, then shebang appears to be limited at first. However,
you can do tricks like the below to allow the shebang to be invoked
first as a shell script and then choose python. This is very flexible
imo:
#!/bin/sh
#
# Choose the python we need. Explanation:
# a) '''\' translates to \ in shell, and starts a python multi-line string
# b) "" strings are treated as string concat by python, shell ignores them
# c) "true" command ignores its arguments
# c) exit before the ending ''' so the shell reads no further
# d) reset set docstrings to ignore the multiline comment code
#
"true" '''\'
PREFERRED_PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/bin/python
ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.6/bin/python3
FALLBACK_PYTHON=python3
if [ -x $PREFERRED_PYTHON ]; then
echo Using preferred python $PREFERRED_PYTHON
exec $PREFERRED_PYTHON "$0" "$#"
elif [ -x $ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON ]; then
echo Using alternative python $ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON
exec $ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON "$0" "$#"
else
echo Using fallback python $FALLBACK_PYTHON
exec python3 "$0" "$#"
fi
exit 127
'''
__doc__ = """What this file does"""
print(__doc__)
import platform
print(platform.python_version())
Or better yet, perhaps, to facilitate code reuse across multiple python scripts:
#!/bin/bash
"true" '''\'; source $(cd $(dirname ${BASH_SOURCE[#]}) &>/dev/null && pwd)/select.sh; exec $CHOSEN_PYTHON "$0" "$#"; exit 127; '''
and then select.sh has:
PREFERRED_PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/bin/python
ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.6/bin/python3
FALLBACK_PYTHON=python3
if [ -x $PREFERRED_PYTHON ]; then
CHOSEN_PYTHON=$PREFERRED_PYTHON
elif [ -x $ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON ]; then
CHOSEN_PYTHON=$ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON
else
CHOSEN_PYTHON=$FALLBACK_PYTHON
fi
This is really a question about whether the path to the Python interpreter should be absolute or logical (/usr/bin/env) with respect to portability.
My view after thoroughly testing the behavior is that the logical path in the she-bang is the better of the two options.
Being a Linux Engineer, my goal is always to provide the most suitable, optimized hosts for my developer clients, so the issue of Python environments is something I really need a solid answer to. Encountering other answers on this and other Stack Overflow sites which talked about the issue in a general way without supporting proofs, I've performed some really granular testing & analysis on this very question on Unix.SE.
For files that are intended to be executable from the command-line, I would recommend
#! /usr/bin/env python3
Otherwise you don't need the shebang (though of course it doesn't harm).
If you use virtual environments like with pyenv it is better to write #!/usr/bin/env python
The pyenv setting will control which version of python and from which file location is started to run your script.
If your code is known to be version specific, it will help others to find why your script does not behave in their environment if you specify the expected version in the shebang.
If you want to make your file executable you must add shebang line to your scripts.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
is better option in the sense that this will not be dependent on specific distro of linux but could be used on almost all linux distro since it hunts for the python3 path from environment variables, which is different for different distros of linux.
whereas
#!/usr/local/bin/python3
would be a distro specific path for python3 and would not work if python3 is not found on this path, and could result in confusion and ambiguity for developer when migrating from one distro to another of linux.
Use first
which python
This will give the output as the location where my python interpreter (binary) is present.
This output could be any such as
/usr/bin/python
or
/bin/python
Now appropriately select the shebang line and use it.
To generalize we can use:
#!/usr/bin/env
or
#!/bin/env
Our environment has a shell script to setup the working area. setup.sh looks like this:
export BASE_DIR=$PWD
export PATH=$BASE_DIR/bin
export THIS_VARIABLE=THAT_VALUE
The user does the following:
% . setup.sh
Some of our users are looking for a csh version and that would mean having two setup files.
I'm wondering if there is a way to do this work with a common python file. In The Hitchhiker's Guide to Python Kenneth Reitz suggests using a setup.py file in projects, but I'm not sure if Python can set environment variables in the shell as I do above.
Can I replace this shell script with a python script that does the same thing? I don't see how.
(There are other questions that ask this more broadly with many many comments, but this one has a direct question and direct single answer.)
No, Python (or generally any process on Unix-like platforms) cannot change its parent's environment.
A common solution is to have your script print the output in a format suitable for the user's shell. E.g. ssh-agent will print out sh-compatible global assignments with -s or when it sees that it is being invoked from a Bourne-compatible shell; and csh syntax if invoked from csh or tcsh or when explicitly invoked with -c.
The usual invocation in sh-compatible shells is $(eval ssh-agent) -- so the text that the program prints is evaluated by the shell where the user invoked this command.
eval is a well-known security risk, so you want to make this code very easy to vet even for people who don't speak much Python (or shell, or anything much else).
If you are, eh cough, skeptical of directly supporting Csh users, perhaps you can convince them to run your sh-compatible script in a Bourne-compatible shell and then exec csh to get their preferred interactive environment. This also avoids the slippery slope of having an ever-growing pile of little maintenance challenges for supporting Csh, Fish, rc, Powershell etc users.
I'd like to replace python (symbolic link) with a shortcut that calls it as an ld.so argument:
e.g.
/home/user/my_libc_env/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.17.so /home/user/anaconda2/envs/tf_011g/bin/python2.7
instead of (the default)
/home/user/anaconda2/envs/tf_011g/bin/python2.7
Notes:
I need it as a link and not as an alias because my IDE debugger (pycharm) explicitly calls the link.
It should be able to support additional command line arguments if exist
Just using ln -s won't work, because it doesn't accepts arguments. I tried to wrap it as a bash script instead, but it doesn't works as well (works ok from command line, but SegFault when being called from the IDE debugger)
Is there another way for doing that?
EDIT (for clarification):
Here is what I tried for the bash script (works ok from the command line, but yield segmentation fault when being called from the IDE debugger)
#!/bin/bash
LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:/usr/local/cuda-7.5/lib64:/usr/local/cuda-8.0/lib64/cuda/lib64:$HOME/my_libc_env/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/:$HOME/my_libc_env/usr/lib64/:$HOME/my_libc_env/usr/lib/" $HOME/my_libc_env/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.17.so $HOME/anaconda2/envs/tf_011g/bin/python2.7 "${#}"
You can specify where to find a particular shared library by setting the value of the environment variable LD_LIBRARY_PATH. The value is a colon-separated list of directory names; in this case, you want to prepend a specific directory so that it will be checked first.
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/user/my_libc_env/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH /home/user/anaconda2/envs/tf_011g/bin/python2.7
A wrapper script makes this simpler, forgoing the need to remember either the library path or the path to your Python executable.
#!/bin/bash
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/user/my_libc_env/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
/home/user/anaconda2/envs/tf_011g/bin/python2.7 "$#"
Should I put the shebang in my Python scripts? In what form?
#!/usr/bin/env python
or
#!/usr/local/bin/python
Are these equally portable? Which form is used most?
Note: the tornado project uses the shebang. On the other hand the Django project doesn't.
The shebang line in any script determines the script's ability to be executed like a standalone executable without typing python beforehand in the terminal or when double clicking it in a file manager (when configured properly). It isn't necessary but generally put there so when someone sees the file opened in an editor, they immediately know what they're looking at. However, which shebang line you use is important.
Correct usage for (defaults to version 3.latest) Python 3 scripts is:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
Correct usage for (defaults to version 2.latest) Python 2 scripts is:
#!/usr/bin/env python2
The following should not be used (except for the rare case that you are writing code which is compatible with both Python 2.x and 3.x):
#!/usr/bin/env python
The reason for these recommendations, given in PEP 394, is that python can refer either to python2 or python3 on different systems.
Also, do not use:
#!/usr/local/bin/python
"python may be installed at /usr/bin/python or /bin/python in those
cases, the above #! will fail."
―"#!/usr/bin/env python" vs "#!/usr/local/bin/python"
It's really just a matter of taste. Adding the shebang means people can invoke the script directly if they want (assuming it's marked as executable); omitting it just means python has to be invoked manually.
The end result of running the program isn't affected either way; it's just options of the means.
Should I put the shebang in my Python scripts?
Put a shebang into a Python script to indicate:
this module can be run as a script
whether it can be run only on python2, python3 or is it Python 2/3 compatible
on POSIX, it is necessary if you want to run the script directly without invoking python executable explicitly
Are these equally portable? Which form is used most?
If you write a shebang manually then always use #!/usr/bin/env python unless you have a specific reason not to use it. This form is understood even on Windows (Python launcher).
Note: installed scripts should use a specific python executable e.g., /usr/bin/python or /home/me/.virtualenvs/project/bin/python. It is bad if some tool breaks if you activate a virtualenv in your shell. Luckily, the correct shebang is created automatically in most cases by setuptools or your distribution package tools (on Windows, setuptools can generate wrapper .exe scripts automatically).
In other words, if the script is in a source checkout then you will probably see #!/usr/bin/env python. If it is installed then the shebang is a path to a specific python executable such as #!/usr/local/bin/python (NOTE: you should not write the paths from the latter category manually).
To choose whether you should use python, python2, or python3 in the shebang, see PEP 394 - The "python" Command on Unix-Like Systems:
... python should be used in the shebang line only for scripts that are
source compatible with both Python 2 and 3.
in preparation for an eventual change in the default version of
Python, Python 2 only scripts should either be updated to be source
compatible with Python 3 or else to use python2 in the shebang line.
If you have more than one version of Python and the script needs to run under a specific version, the she-bang can ensure the right one is used when the script is executed directly, for example:
#!/usr/bin/python2.7
Note the script could still be run via a complete Python command line, or via import, in which case the she-bang is ignored. But for scripts run directly, this is a decent reason to use the she-bang.
#!/usr/bin/env python is generally the better approach, but this helps with special cases.
Usually it would be better to establish a Python virtual environment, in which case the generic #!/usr/bin/env python would identify the correct instance of Python for the virtualenv.
The purpose of shebang is for the script to recognize the interpreter type when you want to execute the script from the shell.
Mostly, and not always, you execute scripts by supplying the interpreter externally.
Example usage: python-x.x script.py
This will work even if you don't have a shebang declarator.
Why first one is more "portable" is because, /usr/bin/env contains your PATH declaration which accounts for all the destinations where your system executables reside.
NOTE: Tornado doesn't strictly use shebangs, and Django strictly doesn't. It varies with how you are executing your application's main function.
ALSO: It doesn't vary with Python.
You should add a shebang if the script is intended to be executable. You should also install the script with an installing software that modifies the shebang to something correct so it will work on the target platform. Examples of this is distutils and Distribute.
Sometimes, if the answer is not very clear (I mean you cannot decide if yes or no), then it does not matter too much, and you can ignore the problem until the answer is clear.
The #! only purpose is for launching the script. Django loads the sources on its own and uses them. It never needs to decide what interpreter should be used. This way, the #! actually makes no sense here.
Generally, if it is a module and cannot be used as a script, there is no need for using the #!. On the other hand, a module source often contains if __name__ == '__main__': ... with at least some trivial testing of the functionality. Then the #! makes sense again.
One good reason for using #! is when you use both Python 2 and Python 3 scripts -- they must be interpreted by different versions of Python. This way, you have to remember what python must be used when launching the script manually (without the #! inside). If you have a mixture of such scripts, it is a good idea to use the #! inside, make them executable, and launch them as executables (chmod ...).
When using MS-Windows, the #! had no sense -- until recently. Python 3.3 introduces a Windows Python Launcher (py.exe and pyw.exe) that reads the #! line, detects the installed versions of Python, and uses the correct or explicitly wanted version of Python. As the extension can be associated with a program, you can get similar behaviour in Windows as with execute flag in Unix-based systems.
When I installed Python 3.6.1 on Windows 7 recently, it also installed the Python Launcher for Windows, which is supposed to handle the shebang line. However, I found that the Python Launcher did not do this: the shebang line was ignored and Python 2.7.13 was always used (unless I executed the script using py -3).
To fix this, I had to edit the Windows registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\Python.File\shell\open\command. This still had the value
"C:\Python27\python.exe" "%1" %*
from my earlier Python 2.7 installation. I modified this registry key value to
"C:\Windows\py.exe" "%1" %*
and the Python Launcher shebang line processing worked as described above.
Answer: Only if you plan to make it a command-line executable script.
Here is the procedure:
Start off by verifying the proper shebang string to use:
which python
Take the output from that and add it (with the shebang #!) in the first line.
On my system it responds like so:
$which python
/usr/bin/python
So your shebang will look like:
#!/usr/bin/python
After saving, it will still run as before since python will see that first line as a comment.
python filename.py
To make it a command, copy it to drop the .py extension.
cp filename.py filename
Tell the file system that this will be executable:
chmod +x filename
To test it, use:
./filename
Best practice is to move it somewhere in your $PATH so all you need to type is the filename itself.
sudo cp filename /usr/sbin
That way it will work everywhere (without the ./ before the filename)
If you have different modules installed and need to use a specific
python install, then shebang appears to be limited at first. However,
you can do tricks like the below to allow the shebang to be invoked
first as a shell script and then choose python. This is very flexible
imo:
#!/bin/sh
#
# Choose the python we need. Explanation:
# a) '''\' translates to \ in shell, and starts a python multi-line string
# b) "" strings are treated as string concat by python, shell ignores them
# c) "true" command ignores its arguments
# c) exit before the ending ''' so the shell reads no further
# d) reset set docstrings to ignore the multiline comment code
#
"true" '''\'
PREFERRED_PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/bin/python
ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.6/bin/python3
FALLBACK_PYTHON=python3
if [ -x $PREFERRED_PYTHON ]; then
echo Using preferred python $PREFERRED_PYTHON
exec $PREFERRED_PYTHON "$0" "$#"
elif [ -x $ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON ]; then
echo Using alternative python $ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON
exec $ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON "$0" "$#"
else
echo Using fallback python $FALLBACK_PYTHON
exec python3 "$0" "$#"
fi
exit 127
'''
__doc__ = """What this file does"""
print(__doc__)
import platform
print(platform.python_version())
Or better yet, perhaps, to facilitate code reuse across multiple python scripts:
#!/bin/bash
"true" '''\'; source $(cd $(dirname ${BASH_SOURCE[#]}) &>/dev/null && pwd)/select.sh; exec $CHOSEN_PYTHON "$0" "$#"; exit 127; '''
and then select.sh has:
PREFERRED_PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/bin/python
ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON=/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.6/bin/python3
FALLBACK_PYTHON=python3
if [ -x $PREFERRED_PYTHON ]; then
CHOSEN_PYTHON=$PREFERRED_PYTHON
elif [ -x $ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON ]; then
CHOSEN_PYTHON=$ALTERNATIVE_PYTHON
else
CHOSEN_PYTHON=$FALLBACK_PYTHON
fi
This is really a question about whether the path to the Python interpreter should be absolute or logical (/usr/bin/env) with respect to portability.
My view after thoroughly testing the behavior is that the logical path in the she-bang is the better of the two options.
Being a Linux Engineer, my goal is always to provide the most suitable, optimized hosts for my developer clients, so the issue of Python environments is something I really need a solid answer to. Encountering other answers on this and other Stack Overflow sites which talked about the issue in a general way without supporting proofs, I've performed some really granular testing & analysis on this very question on Unix.SE.
For files that are intended to be executable from the command-line, I would recommend
#! /usr/bin/env python3
Otherwise you don't need the shebang (though of course it doesn't harm).
If you use virtual environments like with pyenv it is better to write #!/usr/bin/env python
The pyenv setting will control which version of python and from which file location is started to run your script.
If your code is known to be version specific, it will help others to find why your script does not behave in their environment if you specify the expected version in the shebang.
If you want to make your file executable you must add shebang line to your scripts.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
is better option in the sense that this will not be dependent on specific distro of linux but could be used on almost all linux distro since it hunts for the python3 path from environment variables, which is different for different distros of linux.
whereas
#!/usr/local/bin/python3
would be a distro specific path for python3 and would not work if python3 is not found on this path, and could result in confusion and ambiguity for developer when migrating from one distro to another of linux.
Use first
which python
This will give the output as the location where my python interpreter (binary) is present.
This output could be any such as
/usr/bin/python
or
/bin/python
Now appropriately select the shebang line and use it.
To generalize we can use:
#!/usr/bin/env
or
#!/bin/env
I use TextMate to debug python script, as I like the feature of using 'Command-R' for running python from TextMate, and I learned that emacs provide similar feature.
I need to know if the python is run from command line or from TextMate/emacs. How can I do that?
ADDED
I use TextMate for python coding/debugging, and it's pretty useful. But, sometimes I need to run the test using command line. I normally turn on debugging/logging mode with TextMate, and off with command line mode. This is the reason I asked the question. Also, I plan to use emacs for python debugging, so I wanted to ask the case for emacs.
I got an answer in the case with emacs, and I happen to solve this issue with TextMate.
Set variables in Preferences -> Advanced -> Shell Variables, and I found that TM_ORGANIZATION_NAME is already there to be used. So, I'll just use this variable.
Use this variable, if os.environ['TM_ORGANIZATION_NAME']: return True
I guess the shell variable from TextMate disappear when I'm done using it.
For Emacs: If python is run as an inferior process, then the environment variable INSIDE_EMACS will be set.
From docs:
Emacs sets the environment variable
INSIDE_EMACS in the subshell to a
comma-separated list including the
Emacs version. Programs can check this
variable to determine whether they are
running inside an Emacs subshell.
sys.argv will tell you how Python was invoked. I don't know about TextMate, but when I tell Emacs to eval buffer, its value is ['-c']. That means it's executing a specified command, according to the man page. If Python's run directly from the command line with no parameters, sys.argv will be []. If you run a python script, it will have the script name and whatever arguments you pass it. You might want to set up your python-mode in Emacs and whatever the equivalent in TextMate is to put something special like -t in the command line.
That's pretty hackish though. Maybe there's a better way.
From the docs for sys.path:
As initialized upon program startup,
the first item of this list, path[0],
is the directory containing the script
that was used to invoke the Python
interpreter. If the script directory
is not available (e.g. if the
interpreter is invoked interactively
or if the script is read from standard
input), path[0] is the empty string,
which directs Python to search modules
in the current directory first. Notice
that the script directory is inserted
before the entries inserted as a
result of PYTHONPATH.
So
if sys.path[0]:
# python was run interactively
else:
# python is running a script.
Or, for example, from the IPython prompt (inside Emacs):
In [65]: sys.path
Out[65]:
['', <-------------------- first entry is empty string
'/usr/bin',
'/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/scikits.statsmodels-0.2.0-py2.6.egg',
'/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/pyinterval-1.0b21-py2.6-linux-i686.egg',
... ]
Use Command-R to run the script directly
Use Shift-Command-R to run the script from terminal.