Dropbox public folder alternative for SBo sources?
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Dropbox public folder alternative for SBo sources?
a few of the slackbuilds I maintain have the sources on my dropbox public folder, however now that dropbox has dropped public folders I need to find an alternate place to host the sources. Anyone have suggestions on a good alternative?
That's not really optimized for hosting WGET-able tarballs.
SBo has over 1000 scripts which use a github tarball in the DOWNLOAD field to use with (typically) wget. It's true that some maintainers don't craft the url very well, resulting in downloaded tarballs with no name - just a release tag. However these urls are easily manipulated to download correctly named tarballs. For example, the default
SBo has over 1000 scripts which use a github tarball in the DOWNLOAD field to use with (typically) wget. It's true that some maintainers don't craft the url very well, resulting in downloaded tarballs with no name - just a release tag. However these urls are easily manipulated to download correctly named tarballs. For example, the default
which downloads the expected hoorex-0.6.0.tar.gz tarball. As far as I know, any github url can be manipulated in this way for use with wget.
chris
From my understanding of the initial post, these would be tarballs that he would upload for people to download. Probably source that doesn't have a homepage anymore. It wouldn't be a release tarball generated by github.
I'm not sure if github's policies permit that type of hosting.
From my understanding of the initial post, these would be tarballs that he would upload for people to download. Probably source that doesn't have a homepage anymore. It wouldn't be a release tarball generated by github.
I'm not sure if github's policies permit that type of hosting.
Yes, I was assuming that the OP wanted to store sources - source code files from which tarballs would be generated via a release (not store & distribute externally generated tarballs).
Yes, I was assuming that the OP wanted to store sources - source code files from which tarballs would be generated via a release (not store & distribute externally generated tarballs).
The OP wants hosting for externally generated tarballs.
Hey everyone, after a few tests it seems that dropbox share linking as explained in the above post seems to be working. I only have around four files I need to have hosted. So as of now I'm all good. And Dugan thank you for offering your space I appreciate it.
And Dugan is right, the sources I have are github clones because there is no official release, so I needed a place to host the generated tarball for SBo purposes.
You should be able to host any tarballs (not only generated from source) at Bitbucket, you just need to create an empty repository for that and upload files to Downloads section. At least it was possible not too long ago, can't check at the moment if this feature is still there.
the sources I have are github clones because there is no official release
It's possible to craft a Github download for a specific release as a variant of the trick Chris Willing outlined above. I'm not saying you should do that, it's not pretty, but it's possible.
But that needs quite a lot of extra code in the SlackBuild, and the 40 character git commit is really ugly. You can shorten the first one in the url, but it has to be the full 40 chars in the tarball name and in the tar extract and the top level directory name. If you are thinking "noooooo!" then that's ok, your selfhosted snapshots are perfectly acceptable.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.