这是令人不安的,我发现的唯一一个线路,它在Linux和macOS工作,当执行的脚本是一个同步链接:

SCRIPT_DIR=$(python -c "import os; print(os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath('${BASH_SOURCE[0]}')))")

或,类似,使用Python3 pathlib模块:

SCRIPT_DIR=$(python3 -c "from pathlib import Path; print(Path('${BASH_SOURCE[0]}').resolve().parent)")

在Linux和macOS上进行测试,并与其他解决方案进行比较: https://gist.github.com/ptc-mrucci/61772387878ed53a6c717d51a21d9371

总结:

FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT="$(realpath "${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}")"

# OR, if you do NOT need it to work for **sourced** scripts too:
# FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT="$(realpath "$0")"

# OR, depending on which path you want, in case of nested `source` calls
# FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT="$(realpath "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")"

# OR, add `-s` to NOT expand symlinks in the path:
# FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT="$(realpath -s "${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}")"

SCRIPT_DIRECTORY="$(dirname "$FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT")"
SCRIPT_FILENAME="$(basename "$FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT")"

细节:

在很多情况下,所有你需要获得的是你刚刚打电话的脚本的完整路径. 这可以很容易地通过 realpath 实现. 请注意, realpath 是 GNU 核心工具的一部分. 如果你没有它已经安装(它是默认的在 Ubuntu 上),你可以安装它与 sudo apt 更新 && sudo apt 安装核心工具。

#!/bin/bash

# A. Obtain the full path, and expand (walk down) symbolic links
# A.1. `"$0"` works only if the file is **run**, but NOT if it is **sourced**.
# FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT="$(realpath "$0")"
# A.2. `"${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}"` works whether the file is sourced OR run, and even
# if the script is called from within another bash function!
# NB: if `"${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}"` doesn't give you quite what you want, use
# `"${BASH_SOURCE[0]}"` instead in order to get the first element from the array.
FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT="$(realpath "${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}")"
# B.1. `"$0"` works only if the file is **run**, but NOT if it is **sourced**.
# FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT_KEEP_SYMLINKS="$(realpath -s "$0")"
# B.2. `"${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}"` works whether the file is sourced OR run, and even
# if the script is called from within another bash function!
# NB: if `"${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}"` doesn't give you quite what you want, use
# `"${BASH_SOURCE[0]}"` instead in order to get the first element from the array.
FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT_KEEP_SYMLINKS="$(realpath -s "${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}")"

# You can then also get the full path to the directory, and the base
# filename, like this:
SCRIPT_DIRECTORY="$(dirname "$FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT")"
SCRIPT_FILENAME="$(basename "$FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT")"

# Now print it all out
echo "FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT = \"$FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT\""
echo "SCRIPT_DIRECTORY    = \"$SCRIPT_DIRECTORY\""
echo "SCRIPT_FILENAME     = \"$SCRIPT_FILENAME\""

如果您在脚本中使用“$0”而不是“${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}”,则在运行脚本时,您将获得相同的输出,而不是在提取脚本时,您将获得此不需要的输出:

~/GS/dev/eRCaGuy_hello_world/bash$ . get_script_path.sh 
FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT               = "/bin/bash"
SCRIPT_DIRECTORY                  = "/bin"
SCRIPT_FILENAME                   = "bash"

路径与路径之间的区别:

请注意,直路也成功地走下象征性链接来确定并指向他们的目标,而不是指向象征性链接。 如果你不想要这种行为(有时我不),然后添加到上面的直路命令,使该线看起来像这样:

# Obtain the full path, but do NOT expand (walk down) symbolic links; in
# other words: **keep** the symlinks as part of the path!
FULL_PATH_TO_SCRIPT="$(realpath -s "${BASH_SOURCE[-1]}")"

参考:

[我的答案] Unix 和 Linux:确定路径到源头 Shell 脚本

我尝试了所有这些,没有一个工作,一个非常接近,但有一个小错误打破了它;他们忘了把路放在引用标志上。

而且,很多人假设你正在从一个阴影中运行脚本,所以当你打开一个新的脚本时,他们会忘记它到你的家。

请尝试这个目录为尺寸:

/var/No one/Thought/About Spaces Being/In a Directory/Name/And Here's your file.text

这是正确的,无论你如何或在哪里运行它:

#!/bin/bash
echo "pwd: `pwd`"
echo "\$0: $0"
echo "basename: `basename "$0"`"
echo "dirname: `dirname "$0"`"

因此,要使它实际上有用,这里是如何改变运行脚本的目录:

cd "`dirname "$0"`"

此单行在 Cygwin 上工作,即使脚本已被从 Windows 称为 bash -c <script>:

set mydir="$(cygpath "$(dirname "$0")")"

这应该是这样做的:

DIR="$(dirname "$(realpath "$0")")"

这与路线上的交线和空间一起工作。

请参见男人的页面为 dirname 和 realpath。

请添加关于如何支持MacOS的评论,对不起,我可以验证。

没有百分之百可携带和可靠的方式来要求一个路径到当前的脚本目录,特别是在不同背景,如Cygwin,MinGW,MSYS,Linux等之间,这个问题没有正确和完全解决在Bash的年龄。

在源命令的情况下,我建议用这样的东西取代源命令:

function include()
{
  if [[ -n "$CURRENT_SCRIPT_DIR" ]]; then
    local dir_path=... get directory from `CURRENT_SCRIPT_DIR/$1`, depends if $1 is absolute path or relative ...
    local include_file_path=...
  else
    local dir_path=... request the directory from the "$1" argument using one of answered here methods...
    local include_file_path=...
  fi
  ... push $CURRENT_SCRIPT_DIR in to stack ...
  export CURRENT_SCRIPT_DIR=... export current script directory using $dir_path ...
  source "$include_file_path"
  ... pop $CURRENT_SCRIPT_DIR from stack ...
}

从现在开始,使用包括(...)是基于以前的CURRENT_SCRIPT_DIR在你的脚本。

我自己最接近这一点的实施: https://sourceforge.net/p/tacklelib/tacklelib/HEAD/tree/trunk/bash/tacklelib/bash_tacklelib https://github.com/andry81/tacklelib/tree/trunk/bash/tacklelib/bash_tacklelib

(搜索 tkl_include 函数)