When the script is done, any changes that it made to the environment are discarded. . script The above sources the script. It is as if the commands had been typed in directly. Any environment changes are kept. source script This also sources the script. The source command is not required by POSIX and therefore is less portable than the shorter ..
source is a shell keyword that is supposed to be used like this: source file where file contains valid shell commands. These shell commands will be executed in the current shell as if typed from the command line.
You have an alias which is overriding the builtin source (fix with unalias source) You have a function which is overriding source (fix with unset -f source) You are somehow not using bash (although your bang line would suggest you are). source is not POSIX. Using source on dash does not work, only . works.
The original sh sourced .profile on startup. bash will try to source .bash_profile first, but if that doesn't exist, it will source .profile. Note that if bash is started as sh (e.g. /bin/sh is a link to /bin/bash) or is started with the --posix flag, it tries to emulate sh, and only reads .profile. Footnotes: Actually, the first one of .bash_profile, .bash_login, .profile See also: Bash ...
2 source is there for readability and self-documentation, . exists because it is quick to type. The commands are identical. Perl has long and short versions of many of its control variables for the same reason.
How can I use ffmpeg to reduce the size of a video by lowering the quality (as minimally as possible, naturally, because I need it to run on a mobile device that doesn't have much available space)?...
for clarification. will the output be in the background so that it doesn't interfere with the foreground process? I sometime runs a batch process that ssh's to around thousand or so systems that take 36-48 hours to complete the commands on all of them. TMOUT setting might cause that to exit prematurely. Usually TMUX works for this use case, but I don't think it's good enough any more.
I accidentally sourced the wrong environment from a script. Is there any way to 'unsource' it or in other words to revert it and restore the previous environment? The obvious answer is to start fr...
I've read that BASH_SOURCE should be populated with the name of the executing script (and it works!). But why does BASH_SOURCE hold the name of the executing script, when it is defined in man bash as an array of source filenames corresponding to shell functions?
A dangerous one-liner that doesn't require source: export $(xargs <file) It can't handle comments, frequently used in environment files It can't handle values with whitespace, like in the question example It may unintentionally expand glob patterns into files if they match by any chance It's a bit dangerous because it passes the lines through bash expansion, but it has been useful to me when I ...
