Why is "bash -x" required to make my script.sh bash file run?

Question

I have a simple bash file script that sets proper resolution for my VM (1920x1080) in Linux Mint v18.1:

#!/bin/bash
xrandr --newmode "1920x1080"  173.00  1920 2048 2248 2576  1080 1083 1088 1120 -hsync +vsync 
xrandr --addmode Virtual1 1920x1080
xrandr --output Virtual1 --mode 1920x1080`

Worth noting, I originally had this script living on my desktop, but I have since copied it to /etc/init.d/ but it still does not run without appending bash -x before ./script.sh Can anyone tell me why this is and what I can do to fix it?

EDIT: I was just attempting to run the script incorrectly (I blame PowerShell):
noob_me@linux-mint$ .\reso.sh .reso.sh: command not found

Once I ran it like so ./script.sh it works fine.

update question to show what happens if you try `./script.sh` alone ? — steve, Jul 18 '17 at 21:51
Use a forward slash instead of a backslash. And I don't know why it *would* work with `bash -x .\script.sh`; it shouldn't. The backslash will be removed, so `.script.sh` should be the result. — Wildcard, Jul 18 '17 at 21:53
Related, possible duplicate: https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/136547/135943 — Wildcard, Jul 18 '17 at 22:09
Sorry, I was confused because I am a Windows SysAdmin and most of the time I am running things in PowerShell where you use .\ to run scripts and .EXE's. I'll edit the post to make it correct and use a forward-slash. — SamAndrew81, Jul 19 '17 at 02:08
I wonder if you wrote the script in an editor that put carriage returns and newlines in instead of just newlines? — Jeff Schaller, Jul 19 '17 at 02:19
I think I used the default text program in Linux Mint, yes. I should have just used Nano in the terminal. — SamAndrew81, Jul 19 '17 at 03:10
@SamAndrew81, If the problem was just a typo, why did you accept an answer? — Stephen Rauch, Jul 19 '17 at 15:51

score 3 · Answer 1 · answered Jul 18 '17 at 21:58

3

You need to add execute permissions to the file, if you haven't already, in order to run it on its own. You can do that with chmod. chmod u+x filename will add execute permissions for the file owner, chmod a+x filename will add them for everyone.

answered Jul 18 '17 at 21:58

dogoncouch

549
2
7

Sorry, I should have clarified, I ran `chmod +x` (that is not the same, I take it?) – SamAndrew81 Jul 19 '17 at 02:04
@SamAndrew81 `chmod +x` seems to have the same affect as `chmod a+x`. If it's still not working, what is the error message that you get when you try to run it? Without the error message, we're all just guessing in the dark. – dogoncouch Jul 19 '17 at 15:06

score 2 · Answer 2 · answered Jul 18 '17 at 21:55

2

If the script runs with bash -x, then it also runs without it, as the only thing which bash -x <file> does, is running the script in debug mode by tracing each executed command.

answered Jul 18 '17 at 21:55

marc

2,317
2
16
25

2

`bash -x` is not only enabling the debug mode - it is also calling the bash interpreter explicitly and this makes the script to run. If the script has not execute permissions you can run it either with `bash -x file.sh` or with a plain `bash file.sh` , but not with `./file.sh` – George Vasiliou Jul 19 '17 at 00:00

Why is "bash -x" required to make my script.sh bash file run?

2 Answers2