copy and paste this google map to your website or blog!
Press copy button and paste into your blog or website.
(Please switch to 'HTML' mode when posting into your blog. Examples: WordPress Example, Blogger Example)
Input Form:Deal with this potential dealer,buyer,seller,supplier,manufacturer,exporter,importer
(Any information to deal,buy, sell, quote for products or service)
bash script error: source: not found - Unix Linux Stack Exchange Feb 23, 2014 at 20:36 step 1: chmod +x myscript sh step 2: path myscript sh – PersianGulf Feb 23, 2014 at 20:39 1 @MountainX If you have no control over what is running your script, you can use the standard name instead of the bash synonym source – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Feb 23, 2014 at 23:50 2
sudo: source: command not found - Unix Linux Stack Exchange 34 source is a shell builtin, so it cannot be executed without the shell However, by default, sudo do not run shell From sudo Process model When sudo runs a command, it calls fork (2), sets up the execution environment as described above, and calls the execve system call in the child process If you want to explicitly execute shell, use -s
What is the difference between . and source in shells? source is there for readability and self-documentation, exists because it is quick to type The commands are identical The commands are identical Perl has long and short versions of many of its control variables for the same reason
Cant use `source` from cron? - Unix Linux Stack Exchange 14 First of all, the command's (well, shell builtin's) name is source Unless you have written a script called source and put it in , you want source and not source The next issue is that cron usually uses whatever you have as bin sh and source is a bashism (or other such more complex shells)
Source vs . why different behaviour? - Unix Linux Stack Exchange works, you can replace the first (at least in Bash): source a a The second represents the current directory, you can't replace that with source (especially not with source as you've done) source source would be OK if you had a file called source in the current directory, containing something meaningful for your current shell
bash: Source: command not found - Unix Linux Stack Exchange Stack Exchange Network Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers
shell - What is the difference between sourcing (. or source) and . . . $ file # that exact same file as above, now it is sourced $ source file # an equivalent (but longer) command Of course, if the directory is not set in the path (not starting dot), some searching will be involved to find the specific file to be sourced In bash:
What is the difference between building from source and using an . . . I e , unpack the source package from your distribution, replace the source with the upstream version, check if any of the distribution's patches or configuration tweaks still apply, build the binary package (make sure you changed the version of the packaged stuff!) and install that one Yes, it is more work than just building and installing
sourcing a file inside a script - Unix Linux Stack Exchange The expected result: The environment variable set by the script using the source command will be printed into a temporary file Actual result: The sourced file runs nicely, but the LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable remains empty
What is the difference between ~ . profile and ~ . bash_profile? bash will try to source bash_profile first, but if that doesn't exist, it will source profile 1 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: