What is the difference between . . and source? [duplicate] When the script is done, any changes that it made to the environment are discarded script The above sources the script It is as if the commands had been typed in directly Any environment changes are kept source script This also sources the script The source command is not required by POSIX and therefore is less portable than the shorter
What is the difference between . and source in shells? 2 source is there for readability and self-documentation, exists because it is quick to type The commands are identical Perl has long and short versions of many of its control variables for the same reason
What is the difference between building from source and using an . . . I e , unpack the source package from your distribution, replace the source with the upstream version, check if any of the distribution's patches or configuration tweaks still apply, build the binary package (make sure you changed the version of the packaged stuff!) and install that one Yes, it is more work than just building and installing
Source shell script automatically in terminal How can I automatically source a particular shell script when I open a terminal window by right clicking somewhere and choosing "open in terminal"? For example, every time I open a terminal I need
bash - Revert . or source - Unix Linux Stack Exchange I accidentally sourced the wrong environment from a script Is there any way to 'unsource' it or in other words to revert it and restore the previous environment? The obvious answer is to start fr
How to export variables from a file? - Unix Linux Stack Exchange A dangerous one-liner that doesn't require source: export $(xargs <file) It can't handle comments, frequently used in environment files It can't handle values with whitespace, like in the question example It may unintentionally expand glob patterns into files if they match by any chance It's a bit dangerous because it passes the lines through bash expansion, but it has been useful to me when I