Problem with open a .sh file with Python:not found

Question

I have to open a .sh file with a python GUI developed with PyQt5. So I implemented the command:

def function_openSH(self):
    subprocess.call('chmod u+x ./script_open.sh', shell=True)
    subprocess.call('./script_open.sh', shell=True)

It gives me: ./script_open.sh: 5: source: not found. Why?

@TforV What’s inside script_open.sh? That’s where the error occurs. Can you run the file manually on the command line? — Konrad Rudolph
– Konrad Rudolph, Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 13:09
./ means "this directory". It is likely that the subprocess you start has a different idea of what that means. — BoarGules
– BoarGules, Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 13:12
Dear all, the script works but it gives the same error: very strange — TforV
– TforV, Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 13:15

glenn jackman · Accepted Answer · 2021-06-16 13:35:01Z

3

subprocess with shell=True specifically uses /bin/sh. If this is not a symlink to bash, then you may be using a POSIX compliant shell (such as dash), then the source command is not available:

$ cat > foo.sh
echo hello world

$ bash -c 'source ./foo.sh'
hello world

$ /bin/sh -c 'source ./foo.sh'
/bin/sh: 1: source: not found

$ ls -l /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Aug  7  2020 /bin/sh -> dash

$ python
Python 2.7.16 (default, Oct 10 2019, 22:02:15) 
[GCC 8.3.0] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import subprocess
>>> subprocess.call('source ./foo.sh', shell=True)
/bin/sh: 1: source: not found
127

Since you explicitly made your script executable, use shell=False

Or, use the POSIX sh . command instead of the bash-specific source.

>>> subprocess.call('. ./foo.sh', shell=True)
hello world
0

answered Jun 16, 2021 at 13:35

glenn jackman

249k42 gold badges233 silver badges362 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

3 Comments

Konrad Rudolph Over a year ago

Cor. Another day, another command I had assumed to be part of POSIX I learn is actually a bashism.

user1934428 Over a year ago

@glennjackman: I'm pretty sure that the OP knowingly does use a pure POSIX shell: He tagged his question simply with shell, and never mentions a different shell (such as ksh,...) anywhere.

Konrad Rudolph Over a year ago

@user1934428 Exceedingly unlikely. If OP knowingly used a pure POSIX shell they’d have known to add the shebang line. Furthermore, they clearly do use a different shell, since their script uses bashisms.

Konrad Rudolph · Accepted Answer · 2021-06-16 13:49:22Z

1

My guess would be that you did not specify which shell to use e.g. #!/bin/bash or that you don't define the explicit path of the .sh file.

edited Jun 16, 2021 at 13:49

Konrad Rudolph

549k142 gold badges965 silver badges1.3k bronze badges

answered Jun 16, 2021 at 13:09

Sebastian Szczepaniak

113 bronze badges

2 Comments

Sebastian Szczepaniak Over a year ago

Yeah, thats true, but I kinda remember there were issues with .sh when not specifying which shell to use, were /bin/sh was used. That issue produced a ton of broken scripts in Ubuntu.

Konrad Rudolph Over a year ago

That’s definitely true, and Python’s execvp call differs from the POSIX API’s (see stackoverflow.com/q/62893701/1968). But this isn’t relevant here: OP’s code works with a script without shebang line if all it does is invoke source on an existing file.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Problem with open a .sh file with Python:not found

2 Answers 2

3 Comments

2 Comments

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

3 Comments

2 Comments

Linked

Related