Which is the more standard package, getopt or getopts (with an “s”)?

The Linux foundation list of standard utilities includes getopts but not getopt. Similar for the Open Group list of Posix utilities.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia's list of standard Unix Commands includes getopt but not getopts. Similarly, the Windows Subsystem for Linux (based on Ubuntu based on Debian) also includes getopt but not getopts (and it is the GNU Enhanced version).

balter@spectre:~$ which getopt

/usr/bin/getopt

balter@spectre:~$ getopt -V

getopt from util-linux 2.27.1

balter@spectre:~$ which getopts

balter@spectre:~$

So if I want to pick one that I can be the most confident that anyone using one of the more standard Linux distros (e.g. Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, etc.), which should I pick?

Note:

thanks to Michael and Muru for explaining about builtin vs executable. I had just stumbled across this as well which lists bash builtins.

edited May 14 '18 at 5:35

asked May 14 '18 at 4:48

abalter

1415

5

getopts is a shell built-in (as both of your sources identify), not an executable. It's in every POSIX shell, including the one from WSL Ubuntu. What are you actually trying to do with it? It's not impossible that there are cases where it matters which you use, but there's not enough information here to say.

– Michael Homer
May 14 '18 at 4:54

Wanting to use either getopt or getopts at all is a warning sign that your shell script is probably complicated enough that you should consider rewriting it in a better programming language, e.g. Perl, Python, Ruby, even PHP.

– zwol
May 14 '18 at 15:44

@zwol -- I could throw it back at you and say your statement indicates you aren't a skilled bash programmer ;) I work in a field where we pipeline other command line programs, and run the pipelines on a cluster. Using a bash script for this is by far the most efficient method. I've had great success with using getopts in this application. I use Python when it is the better tool.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 16:38

add a comment |

The Linux foundation list of standard utilities includes getopts but not getopt. Similar for the Open Group list of Posix utilities.

balter@spectre:~$ which getopt

/usr/bin/getopt

balter@spectre:~$ getopt -V

getopt from util-linux 2.27.1

balter@spectre:~$ which getopts

balter@spectre:~$

So if I want to pick one that I can be the most confident that anyone using one of the more standard Linux distros (e.g. Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, etc.), which should I pick?

Note:

thanks to Michael and Muru for explaining about builtin vs executable. I had just stumbled across this as well which lists bash builtins.

edited May 14 '18 at 5:35

asked May 14 '18 at 4:48

abalter

1415

5

getopts is a shell built-in (as both of your sources identify), not an executable. It's in every POSIX shell, including the one from WSL Ubuntu. What are you actually trying to do with it? It's not impossible that there are cases where it matters which you use, but there's not enough information here to say.

– Michael Homer
May 14 '18 at 4:54

Wanting to use either getopt or getopts at all is a warning sign that your shell script is probably complicated enough that you should consider rewriting it in a better programming language, e.g. Perl, Python, Ruby, even PHP.

– zwol
May 14 '18 at 15:44

@zwol -- I could throw it back at you and say your statement indicates you aren't a skilled bash programmer ;) I work in a field where we pipeline other command line programs, and run the pipelines on a cluster. Using a bash script for this is by far the most efficient method. I've had great success with using getopts in this application. I use Python when it is the better tool.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 16:38

add a comment |

The Linux foundation list of standard utilities includes getopts but not getopt. Similar for the Open Group list of Posix utilities.

balter@spectre:~$ which getopt

/usr/bin/getopt

balter@spectre:~$ getopt -V

getopt from util-linux 2.27.1

balter@spectre:~$ which getopts

balter@spectre:~$

So if I want to pick one that I can be the most confident that anyone using one of the more standard Linux distros (e.g. Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, etc.), which should I pick?

Note:

thanks to Michael and Muru for explaining about builtin vs executable. I had just stumbled across this as well which lists bash builtins.

edited May 14 '18 at 5:35

asked May 14 '18 at 4:48

abalter

1415

The Linux foundation list of standard utilities includes getopts but not getopt. Similar for the Open Group list of Posix utilities.

balter@spectre:~$ which getopt

/usr/bin/getopt

balter@spectre:~$ getopt -V

getopt from util-linux 2.27.1

balter@spectre:~$ which getopts

balter@spectre:~$

So if I want to pick one that I can be the most confident that anyone using one of the more standard Linux distros (e.g. Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, etc.), which should I pick?

Note:

thanks to Michael and Muru for explaining about builtin vs executable. I had just stumbled across this as well which lists bash builtins.

linux posix getopts

edited May 14 '18 at 5:35

asked May 14 '18 at 4:48

abalter

1415

edited May 14 '18 at 5:35

asked May 14 '18 at 4:48

abalter

1415

edited May 14 '18 at 5:35

asked May 14 '18 at 4:48

abalter

1415

asked May 14 '18 at 4:48

abalter

1415

asked May 14 '18 at 4:48

abalter

1415

5

getopts is a shell built-in (as both of your sources identify), not an executable. It's in every POSIX shell, including the one from WSL Ubuntu. What are you actually trying to do with it? It's not impossible that there are cases where it matters which you use, but there's not enough information here to say.

– Michael Homer
May 14 '18 at 4:54

Wanting to use either getopt or getopts at all is a warning sign that your shell script is probably complicated enough that you should consider rewriting it in a better programming language, e.g. Perl, Python, Ruby, even PHP.

– zwol
May 14 '18 at 15:44

@zwol -- I could throw it back at you and say your statement indicates you aren't a skilled bash programmer ;) I work in a field where we pipeline other command line programs, and run the pipelines on a cluster. Using a bash script for this is by far the most efficient method. I've had great success with using getopts in this application. I use Python when it is the better tool.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 16:38

add a comment |

5

getopts is a shell built-in (as both of your sources identify), not an executable. It's in every POSIX shell, including the one from WSL Ubuntu. What are you actually trying to do with it? It's not impossible that there are cases where it matters which you use, but there's not enough information here to say.

– Michael Homer
May 14 '18 at 4:54

Wanting to use either getopt or getopts at all is a warning sign that your shell script is probably complicated enough that you should consider rewriting it in a better programming language, e.g. Perl, Python, Ruby, even PHP.

– zwol
May 14 '18 at 15:44

@zwol -- I could throw it back at you and say your statement indicates you aren't a skilled bash programmer ;) I work in a field where we pipeline other command line programs, and run the pipelines on a cluster. Using a bash script for this is by far the most efficient method. I've had great success with using getopts in this application. I use Python when it is the better tool.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 16:38

getopts is a shell built-in (as both of your sources identify), not an executable. It's in every POSIX shell, including the one from WSL Ubuntu. What are you actually trying to do with it? It's not impossible that there are cases where it matters which you use, but there's not enough information here to say.

– Michael Homer
May 14 '18 at 4:54

Wanting to use either getopt or getopts at all is a warning sign that your shell script is probably complicated enough that you should consider rewriting it in a better programming language, e.g. Perl, Python, Ruby, even PHP.

– zwol
May 14 '18 at 15:44

@zwol -- I could throw it back at you and say your statement indicates you aren't a skilled bash programmer ;) I work in a field where we pipeline other command line programs, and run the pipelines on a cluster. Using a bash script for this is by far the most efficient method. I've had great success with using getopts in this application. I use Python when it is the better tool.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 16:38

add a comment |

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

which is the wrong tool. getopts is usually also a builtin:

Since getopts affects the current shell execution environment, it is
generally provided as a shell regular built-in.

~ for sh in dash ksh bash zsh; do "$sh" -c 'printf "%s in %sn" "$(type getopts)" "$0"'; done

getopts is a shell builtin in dash

getopts is a shell builtin in ksh

getopts is a shell builtin in bash

getopts is a shell builtin in zsh

If you're using a shell script, you can safely depend on getopts. There might be other reasons to favour one or the other, but getopts is standard.

See also: Why not use "which"? What to use then?

edited May 17 '18 at 10:59

Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137

answered May 14 '18 at 4:55

muru

1

getopt was dropped a while ago in favor of getopts. However, the new GNU-enhanced getopt seems to have improved over getopts. But if getopts is the Posix standard, then I should stick to that for the time being.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 5:37

add a comment |

I too would prefer getopts over getopt for the following reasons:

`getopt` Cons

External utility

Cannot handle empty argument string or arguments with embedded whitespace in traditional version

`getopts` Pros

Works in any POSIX shell and is portable

Works well with -a -b as well as -ab

edited Feb 17 at 18:22

dessert

1,258623

answered May 17 '18 at 11:19

Arushix

1,0418

Very clear. Thanks! Especially the information about -a -b === -ab

– abalter
May 17 '18 at 15:06

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f443617%2fwhich-is-the-more-standard-package-getopt-or-getopts-with-an-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

which is the wrong tool. getopts is usually also a builtin:

Since getopts affects the current shell execution environment, it is
generally provided as a shell regular built-in.

~ for sh in dash ksh bash zsh; do "$sh" -c 'printf "%s in %sn" "$(type getopts)" "$0"'; done

getopts is a shell builtin in dash

getopts is a shell builtin in ksh

getopts is a shell builtin in bash

getopts is a shell builtin in zsh

If you're using a shell script, you can safely depend on getopts. There might be other reasons to favour one or the other, but getopts is standard.

See also: Why not use "which"? What to use then?

edited May 17 '18 at 10:59

Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137

answered May 14 '18 at 4:55

muru

1

getopt was dropped a while ago in favor of getopts. However, the new GNU-enhanced getopt seems to have improved over getopts. But if getopts is the Posix standard, then I should stick to that for the time being.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 5:37

add a comment |

which is the wrong tool. getopts is usually also a builtin:

Since getopts affects the current shell execution environment, it is
generally provided as a shell regular built-in.

~ for sh in dash ksh bash zsh; do "$sh" -c 'printf "%s in %sn" "$(type getopts)" "$0"'; done

getopts is a shell builtin in dash

getopts is a shell builtin in ksh

getopts is a shell builtin in bash

getopts is a shell builtin in zsh

If you're using a shell script, you can safely depend on getopts. There might be other reasons to favour one or the other, but getopts is standard.

See also: Why not use "which"? What to use then?

edited May 17 '18 at 10:59

Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137

answered May 14 '18 at 4:55

muru

1

getopt was dropped a while ago in favor of getopts. However, the new GNU-enhanced getopt seems to have improved over getopts. But if getopts is the Posix standard, then I should stick to that for the time being.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 5:37

add a comment |

which is the wrong tool. getopts is usually also a builtin:

Since getopts affects the current shell execution environment, it is
generally provided as a shell regular built-in.

~ for sh in dash ksh bash zsh; do "$sh" -c 'printf "%s in %sn" "$(type getopts)" "$0"'; done

getopts is a shell builtin in dash

getopts is a shell builtin in ksh

getopts is a shell builtin in bash

getopts is a shell builtin in zsh

If you're using a shell script, you can safely depend on getopts. There might be other reasons to favour one or the other, but getopts is standard.

See also: Why not use "which"? What to use then?

edited May 17 '18 at 10:59

Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137

answered May 14 '18 at 4:55

muru

which is the wrong tool. getopts is usually also a builtin:

Since getopts affects the current shell execution environment, it is
generally provided as a shell regular built-in.

~ for sh in dash ksh bash zsh; do "$sh" -c 'printf "%s in %sn" "$(type getopts)" "$0"'; done

getopts is a shell builtin in dash

getopts is a shell builtin in ksh

getopts is a shell builtin in bash

getopts is a shell builtin in zsh

If you're using a shell script, you can safely depend on getopts. There might be other reasons to favour one or the other, but getopts is standard.

See also: Why not use "which"? What to use then?

edited May 17 '18 at 10:59

Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137

answered May 14 '18 at 4:55

muru

edited May 17 '18 at 10:59

Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137

edited May 17 '18 at 10:59

Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137

edited May 17 '18 at 10:59

Jeff Schaller

42.9k1159137

answered May 14 '18 at 4:55

muru

answered May 14 '18 at 4:55

muru

answered May 14 '18 at 4:55

muru

1

getopt was dropped a while ago in favor of getopts. However, the new GNU-enhanced getopt seems to have improved over getopts. But if getopts is the Posix standard, then I should stick to that for the time being.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 5:37

add a comment |

1

getopt was dropped a while ago in favor of getopts. However, the new GNU-enhanced getopt seems to have improved over getopts. But if getopts is the Posix standard, then I should stick to that for the time being.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 5:37

getopt was dropped a while ago in favor of getopts. However, the new GNU-enhanced getopt seems to have improved over getopts. But if getopts is the Posix standard, then I should stick to that for the time being.

– abalter
May 14 '18 at 5:37

add a comment |

I too would prefer getopts over getopt for the following reasons:

`getopt` Cons

External utility

Cannot handle empty argument string or arguments with embedded whitespace in traditional version

`getopts` Pros

Works in any POSIX shell and is portable

Works well with -a -b as well as -ab

edited Feb 17 at 18:22

dessert

1,258623

answered May 17 '18 at 11:19

Arushix

1,0418

Very clear. Thanks! Especially the information about -a -b === -ab

– abalter
May 17 '18 at 15:06

add a comment |

I too would prefer getopts over getopt for the following reasons:

`getopt` Cons

External utility

Cannot handle empty argument string or arguments with embedded whitespace in traditional version

`getopts` Pros

Works in any POSIX shell and is portable

Works well with -a -b as well as -ab

edited Feb 17 at 18:22

dessert

1,258623

answered May 17 '18 at 11:19

Arushix

1,0418

Very clear. Thanks! Especially the information about -a -b === -ab

– abalter
May 17 '18 at 15:06

add a comment |

I too would prefer getopts over getopt for the following reasons:

`getopt` Cons

External utility

Cannot handle empty argument string or arguments with embedded whitespace in traditional version

`getopts` Pros

Works in any POSIX shell and is portable

Works well with -a -b as well as -ab

edited Feb 17 at 18:22

dessert

1,258623

answered May 17 '18 at 11:19

Arushix

1,0418

I too would prefer getopts over getopt for the following reasons:

`getopt` Cons

External utility

Cannot handle empty argument string or arguments with embedded whitespace in traditional version

`getopts` Pros

Works in any POSIX shell and is portable

Works well with -a -b as well as -ab

edited Feb 17 at 18:22

dessert

1,258623

answered May 17 '18 at 11:19

Arushix

1,0418

edited Feb 17 at 18:22

dessert

1,258623

edited Feb 17 at 18:22

dessert

1,258623

edited Feb 17 at 18:22

dessert

1,258623

answered May 17 '18 at 11:19

Arushix

1,0418

answered May 17 '18 at 11:19

Arushix

1,0418

answered May 17 '18 at 11:19

Arushix

1,0418

Very clear. Thanks! Especially the information about -a -b === -ab

– abalter
May 17 '18 at 15:06

add a comment |

Very clear. Thanks! Especially the information about -a -b === -ab

– abalter
May 17 '18 at 15:06

Very clear. Thanks! Especially the information about -a -b === -ab

– abalter
May 17 '18 at 15:06

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Ytdyklly