• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy


  • Subject: Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
  • From: Roger Howard <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:13:21 -0800

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:23:59 -0500, Paul Skinner <email@hidden>
wrote:
> 	Even if I call the tool with a full path this will always fail
> because it won't have access to the dependencies that imagemagik
> requires. It's not possible unless I could build IM in a default path
> for sh shell.

Paul - maybe I'm missing something here, but I have no issues with calling
shell tools by the full path, regardless of their dependencies... I script
ImageMagick this way all the time, along with exiftool, flac/lame, and
others. I always make it a habit to use the full path to any binary I call
unless it's a part of the stock OSX, and have yet to see an issue with the
called binary not being able to link to its dependencies.

> 	Oh well, it's not like I could distribute this script with an IM
> dependency anyway.

Well, a statically compiled ImageMagick convert binary (or the entire IM
package) could easily be bundled into a script bundle - done that before,
when I had no control over the execution environment.

> I spent 3 hours installing and updating macports,
> rubygems and IM just to get this to run properly in the terminal. And
> I certainly wouldn't think of futzing around with the install paths. I
> wonder if it is possible to somehow get the default sh shell paths to
> see the tools using symlinks and such. No, I'd probably just shoot
> myself in the foot with the terminal.

Symlinks would work fine if you really must have the binary available in
one of the standard paths - personally, I prefer to just call them by a
full path in do shell script to begin with.

- Roger
 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
      • From: Paul Skinner <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy (From: airdrummer <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy (From: Paul Skinner <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
  • Next by Date: Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
  • Previous by thread: Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
  • Next by thread: Re: Do shell script vs terminal discrepancy
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread