"sudo ./pishrink.sh" vs "sudo pishrink.sh" ?? about pishrink HOT 7 CLOSED

I updated the README and created PR #43

from pishrink.

FYI, running sudo ./pishrink.sh ... works if you don't do sudo mv pishrink.sh /usr/local/bin ;-) (but then you end up with the pishrink.sh 'hanging around' in your home directory).

More details, for reference:
You're correct, ./ does mean use a relative directory reference, it means look in the current directory. But since you've now moved pishrink.sh from the current directory to /usr/local/bin, you either need to use sudo /usr/local/bin/pishrink.sh ..., or you can just use sudo pishrink.sh ... since /usr/local/bin is included in the $PATH variable. When you run a 'bare command' with no path prefix, the shell (in your case bash) looks for the command in each of the directories specified in $PATH.

from pishrink.

Thanks @lurch and @framps. I knew the bare command would look in the current directory plus anything in $PATH I knew ./ made it look in the current directory. I did not know it prevented it from looking in $PATH. Still learning my way around this stuff (as I guess is obvious).

from pishrink.

@John-Mc You're close... 😉 by default on Linux the current directory is never in the $PATH so if you have pishrink.sh in e.g. your home directory, then trying to run sudo pishrink.sh ... would fail, you either need to run sudo ./pishrink.sh ... or e.g. sudo /home/pi/pishrink.sh ...
If you give an explicit path to an executable (and ./ is an explicit path to the current directory), then the shell doesn't need to try searching the $PATH to find it :)

from pishrink.

@John-Mc Can this be closed, now that the README has been updated?

from pishrink.

Closing since its already merged

from pishrink.

Sure. Sorry, I didn't know the etiquette of closing an issue. I figured it was up to the site owner.

from pishrink.