I notice that some scripts which I have acquired from others have the shebang #!/path/to/NAME
while others (using the same tool, NAME) have the shebang #!/usr/bin/env NAME
.
Both seem to work properly. In tutorials (on Python, for example), there seems to be a suggestion that the latter shebang is better. But, I don't quite understand why this is so.
I realize that, in order to use the latter shebang, NAME must be in the PATH whereas the first shebang does not have this restriction.
Also, it appears (to me) that the first would be the better shebang, since it specifies precisely where NAME is located. So, in this case, if there are multiple versions of NAME (e.g., /usr/bin/NAME, /usr/local/bin/NAME), the first case specifies which to use.
My question is why is the first shebang preferred to the second one?
Best Answer
Objective Criteria/Requirements:
In determining whether to use an absolute or logical (
/usr/bin/env
) path to an interpreter in a she-bang, there are (2) key considerations:a) The interpreter can be found on target system
b) The correct version of interpreter can be found on target system
If we AGREE that "b)" is desirable, we also agree that:
c) It's preferable our scripts fail rather than execute using an incorrect interpreter version and potentially achieve inconsistent results.
If we DON'T AGREE that "b)" matters, then any interpreter found will suffice.
Testing:
Since using a logical path-
/usr/bin/env
to the interpreter in the she-bang is the most extensible solution allowing the same script to execute successfully on target hosts with different paths to the same interpreter, we'll test it- using Python due to its' popularity- to see if it meets our criteria./usr/bin/env
live in a predictable, consistent location on POPULAR (not "every") Operating Systems? Yes:Expected results: that
print(sys.version)
=env pythonX.x
. Each time./test1.py
was executed using a different installed Python version, the correct version specified in the she-bang was printed.Testing Notes:
/usr/bin
according to the FHSConclusion:
Although it's TRUE that
#!/usr/bin/env python
will use the first version of Python it finds in the user's Path, we can moderate this behaviour by specifying a version number such as#!/usr/bin/env pythonX.x
. Indeed, developers don't care which interpreter is found "first", all they care about is that their code is executed using the specified interpreter they know to be compatible with their code to ensure consistent results- wherever that may live in the filesystem...In terms of portability/flexibility, using a logical-
/usr/bin/env
- rather than absolute path not only meets requirements a), b) & c) from my testing with different versions of Python, but also has the benefit of fuzzy-logic finding the same version interpreter even if they live at different paths on different Operating Systems. And although MOST distros respect the FHS, not all do.So where a script will FAIL if binary lives in different absolute path then specified in shebang, the same script using a logical path SUCCEEDS as it keeps going until it finds a match, thereby offering greater reliability & extensibility across platforms.