How to automatically download files from github without copying the repository
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I have a number of scripts that I use almost everyday in my work. I develop and maintain these on my personal laptop. I have a local git repository where I track the changes, and I have a repository on github to which I push my changes.
I do a lot of my work on a remote supercomputer, and I use my scripts there a lot. I would like to keep my remote /home/bin updated with my maintained scripts, but without cluttering the system with my repository.
My current solution does not feel ideal. I have added the following code belowto my .bashrc. Whenever I log in, my repository will be deleted, and I then clone my project from github. Then I copy the script files I want to my bin, and make them executable.
This sort of works, but it does not feel like an elegant solution. I would like to simply download the script files directly, without bothering with the git repository. I never edit my script files from the remote computer anyway, so I just want to get the files from github.
I was thinking that perhaps wget could work, but it did not feel very robust to include the urls to the raw file page at github; if I rename the file I suppose I have to update the code as well. At least my current solution is robust (as long as the github link does not change).
Code in my .bashrc:
REPDIR=mydir
if [ -d $REPDIR ]; then
rm -rf $REPDIR
echo "Old repository removed."
fi
cd $HOME
git clone https://github.com/user/myproject
cp $REPDIR/*.py $REPDIR/*.sh /home/user/bin/
chmod +x /home/user/bin/*
Based on Kent's solution, I have defined a function that updates my scripts. To avoid any issues with symlinks, I just unlink everything and relink. that might just be my paranoia, though....
function updatescripts() {
DIR=/home/user/scripts
CURR_DIR=$PWD
cd $DIR
git pull origin master
cd $CURR_DIR
for file in $DIR/*.py $DIR/*.sh; do
if [ -L $HOME/bin/$(basename $file) ]; then
unlink $HOME/bin/$(basename $file)
fi
ln -s $file $HOME/bin/$(basename $file)
done
}
bash git github
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42
YodaYoda
214413
add a comment |
I have a number of scripts that I use almost everyday in my work. I develop and maintain these on my personal laptop. I have a local git repository where I track the changes, and I have a repository on github to which I push my changes.
I do a lot of my work on a remote supercomputer, and I use my scripts there a lot. I would like to keep my remote /home/bin updated with my maintained scripts, but without cluttering the system with my repository.
My current solution does not feel ideal. I have added the following code belowto my .bashrc. Whenever I log in, my repository will be deleted, and I then clone my project from github. Then I copy the script files I want to my bin, and make them executable.
This sort of works, but it does not feel like an elegant solution. I would like to simply download the script files directly, without bothering with the git repository. I never edit my script files from the remote computer anyway, so I just want to get the files from github.
I was thinking that perhaps wget could work, but it did not feel very robust to include the urls to the raw file page at github; if I rename the file I suppose I have to update the code as well. At least my current solution is robust (as long as the github link does not change).
Code in my .bashrc:
REPDIR=mydir
if [ -d $REPDIR ]; then
rm -rf $REPDIR
echo "Old repository removed."
fi
cd $HOME
git clone https://github.com/user/myproject
cp $REPDIR/*.py $REPDIR/*.sh /home/user/bin/
chmod +x /home/user/bin/*
Based on Kent's solution, I have defined a function that updates my scripts. To avoid any issues with symlinks, I just unlink everything and relink. that might just be my paranoia, though....
function updatescripts() {
DIR=/home/user/scripts
CURR_DIR=$PWD
cd $DIR
git pull origin master
cd $CURR_DIR
for file in $DIR/*.py $DIR/*.sh; do
if [ -L $HOME/bin/$(basename $file) ]; then
unlink $HOME/bin/$(basename $file)
fi
ln -s $file $HOME/bin/$(basename $file)
done
}
bash git github
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42
YodaYoda
214413
add a comment |
I have a number of scripts that I use almost everyday in my work. I develop and maintain these on my personal laptop. I have a local git repository where I track the changes, and I have a repository on github to which I push my changes.
I do a lot of my work on a remote supercomputer, and I use my scripts there a lot. I would like to keep my remote /home/bin updated with my maintained scripts, but without cluttering the system with my repository.
My current solution does not feel ideal. I have added the following code belowto my .bashrc. Whenever I log in, my repository will be deleted, and I then clone my project from github. Then I copy the script files I want to my bin, and make them executable.
This sort of works, but it does not feel like an elegant solution. I would like to simply download the script files directly, without bothering with the git repository. I never edit my script files from the remote computer anyway, so I just want to get the files from github.
I was thinking that perhaps wget could work, but it did not feel very robust to include the urls to the raw file page at github; if I rename the file I suppose I have to update the code as well. At least my current solution is robust (as long as the github link does not change).
Code in my .bashrc:
REPDIR=mydir
if [ -d $REPDIR ]; then
rm -rf $REPDIR
echo "Old repository removed."
fi
cd $HOME
git clone https://github.com/user/myproject
cp $REPDIR/*.py $REPDIR/*.sh /home/user/bin/
chmod +x /home/user/bin/*
Based on Kent's solution, I have defined a function that updates my scripts. To avoid any issues with symlinks, I just unlink everything and relink. that might just be my paranoia, though....
function updatescripts() {
DIR=/home/user/scripts
CURR_DIR=$PWD
cd $DIR
git pull origin master
cd $CURR_DIR
for file in $DIR/*.py $DIR/*.sh; do
if [ -L $HOME/bin/$(basename $file) ]; then
unlink $HOME/bin/$(basename $file)
fi
ln -s $file $HOME/bin/$(basename $file)
done
}
bash git github
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42
YodaYoda
214413
I have a number of scripts that I use almost everyday in my work. I develop and maintain these on my personal laptop. I have a local git repository where I track the changes, and I have a repository on github to which I push my changes.
I do a lot of my work on a remote supercomputer, and I use my scripts there a lot. I would like to keep my remote /home/bin updated with my maintained scripts, but without cluttering the system with my repository.
My current solution does not feel ideal. I have added the following code belowto my .bashrc. Whenever I log in, my repository will be deleted, and I then clone my project from github. Then I copy the script files I want to my bin, and make them executable.
This sort of works, but it does not feel like an elegant solution. I would like to simply download the script files directly, without bothering with the git repository. I never edit my script files from the remote computer anyway, so I just want to get the files from github.
I was thinking that perhaps wget could work, but it did not feel very robust to include the urls to the raw file page at github; if I rename the file I suppose I have to update the code as well. At least my current solution is robust (as long as the github link does not change).
Code in my .bashrc:
REPDIR=mydir
if [ -d $REPDIR ]; then
rm -rf $REPDIR
echo "Old repository removed."
fi
cd $HOME
git clone https://github.com/user/myproject
cp $REPDIR/*.py $REPDIR/*.sh /home/user/bin/
chmod +x /home/user/bin/*
Based on Kent's solution, I have defined a function that updates my scripts. To avoid any issues with symlinks, I just unlink everything and relink. that might just be my paranoia, though....
function updatescripts() {
DIR=/home/user/scripts
CURR_DIR=$PWD
cd $DIR
git pull origin master
cd $CURR_DIR
for file in $DIR/*.py $DIR/*.sh; do
if [ -L $HOME/bin/$(basename $file) ]; then
unlink $HOME/bin/$(basename $file)
fi
ln -s $file $HOME/bin/$(basename $file)
done
}
bash git github
bash git github
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42
YodaYoda
214413
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42
YodaYoda
214413
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:32
Yoda
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42
YodaYoda
214413
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42
YodaYoda
214413
asked Nov 16 '18 at 12:42
YodaYoda
214413
214413
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
on that remote machine, don't do rm then clone, keep the repository somewhere, just do pull. Since you said you will not change the files on that machine, there won't be conflicts.
For the scripts files. Don't do cp, instead, create symbolic links (ln -s) to your target directory.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 12:56
KentKent
147k28161221
This may be a cleaner alternative to my rm/clone solution, but still it does not avoid the whole repository. But I agree it is better than my previous solution.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 15:33
@Yoda can you tell a bit why you want to avoid the whole repo? sensitive data? or it is a big repo? If it contains sensitive data, you hadclonescript in your bashrc, it is anyway not safe. If it is big one, thepullis much faster thanclone
– Kent
Nov 16 '18 at 20:28
One of the first things I did after the new solution was to edit one of the files.... and so it messed up the repository a bit. If I bypassed the repository, I feel it would easier to correct something if I edited the remote files. I would just re-download and overwrite them. I dont have sensitive data or anything like that, it was just because of my lack of self discipline to not edit the remote files.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 22:03
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
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: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53338158%2fhow-to-automatically-download-files-from-github-without-copying-the-repository%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
on that remote machine, don't do rm then clone, keep the repository somewhere, just do pull. Since you said you will not change the files on that machine, there won't be conflicts.
For the scripts files. Don't do cp, instead, create symbolic links (ln -s) to your target directory.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 12:56
KentKent
147k28161221
This may be a cleaner alternative to my rm/clone solution, but still it does not avoid the whole repository. But I agree it is better than my previous solution.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 15:33
@Yoda can you tell a bit why you want to avoid the whole repo? sensitive data? or it is a big repo? If it contains sensitive data, you hadclonescript in your bashrc, it is anyway not safe. If it is big one, thepullis much faster thanclone
– Kent
Nov 16 '18 at 20:28
One of the first things I did after the new solution was to edit one of the files.... and so it messed up the repository a bit. If I bypassed the repository, I feel it would easier to correct something if I edited the remote files. I would just re-download and overwrite them. I dont have sensitive data or anything like that, it was just because of my lack of self discipline to not edit the remote files.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 22:03
add a comment |
on that remote machine, don't do rm then clone, keep the repository somewhere, just do pull. Since you said you will not change the files on that machine, there won't be conflicts.
For the scripts files. Don't do cp, instead, create symbolic links (ln -s) to your target directory.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 12:56
KentKent
147k28161221
This may be a cleaner alternative to my rm/clone solution, but still it does not avoid the whole repository. But I agree it is better than my previous solution.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 15:33
@Yoda can you tell a bit why you want to avoid the whole repo? sensitive data? or it is a big repo? If it contains sensitive data, you hadclonescript in your bashrc, it is anyway not safe. If it is big one, thepullis much faster thanclone
– Kent
Nov 16 '18 at 20:28
One of the first things I did after the new solution was to edit one of the files.... and so it messed up the repository a bit. If I bypassed the repository, I feel it would easier to correct something if I edited the remote files. I would just re-download and overwrite them. I dont have sensitive data or anything like that, it was just because of my lack of self discipline to not edit the remote files.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 22:03
add a comment |
on that remote machine, don't do rm then clone, keep the repository somewhere, just do pull. Since you said you will not change the files on that machine, there won't be conflicts.
For the scripts files. Don't do cp, instead, create symbolic links (ln -s) to your target directory.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 12:56
KentKent
147k28161221
on that remote machine, don't do rm then clone, keep the repository somewhere, just do pull. Since you said you will not change the files on that machine, there won't be conflicts.
For the scripts files. Don't do cp, instead, create symbolic links (ln -s) to your target directory.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 12:56
KentKent
147k28161221
answered Nov 16 '18 at 12:56
KentKent
147k28161221
answered Nov 16 '18 at 12:56
KentKent
147k28161221
answered Nov 16 '18 at 12:56
KentKent
147k28161221
147k28161221
This may be a cleaner alternative to my rm/clone solution, but still it does not avoid the whole repository. But I agree it is better than my previous solution.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 15:33
@Yoda can you tell a bit why you want to avoid the whole repo? sensitive data? or it is a big repo? If it contains sensitive data, you hadclonescript in your bashrc, it is anyway not safe. If it is big one, thepullis much faster thanclone
– Kent
Nov 16 '18 at 20:28
One of the first things I did after the new solution was to edit one of the files.... and so it messed up the repository a bit. If I bypassed the repository, I feel it would easier to correct something if I edited the remote files. I would just re-download and overwrite them. I dont have sensitive data or anything like that, it was just because of my lack of self discipline to not edit the remote files.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 22:03
add a comment |
This may be a cleaner alternative to my rm/clone solution, but still it does not avoid the whole repository. But I agree it is better than my previous solution.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 15:33
@Yoda can you tell a bit why you want to avoid the whole repo? sensitive data? or it is a big repo? If it contains sensitive data, you hadclonescript in your bashrc, it is anyway not safe. If it is big one, thepullis much faster thanclone
– Kent
Nov 16 '18 at 20:28
One of the first things I did after the new solution was to edit one of the files.... and so it messed up the repository a bit. If I bypassed the repository, I feel it would easier to correct something if I edited the remote files. I would just re-download and overwrite them. I dont have sensitive data or anything like that, it was just because of my lack of self discipline to not edit the remote files.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 22:03
This may be a cleaner alternative to my rm/clone solution, but still it does not avoid the whole repository. But I agree it is better than my previous solution.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 15:33
This may be a cleaner alternative to my rm/clone solution, but still it does not avoid the whole repository. But I agree it is better than my previous solution.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 15:33
@Yoda can you tell a bit why you want to avoid the whole repo? sensitive data? or it is a big repo? If it contains sensitive data, you had
clone script in your bashrc, it is anyway not safe. If it is big one, the pull is much faster than clone– Kent
Nov 16 '18 at 20:28
@Yoda can you tell a bit why you want to avoid the whole repo? sensitive data? or it is a big repo? If it contains sensitive data, you had
clone script in your bashrc, it is anyway not safe. If it is big one, the pull is much faster than clone– Kent
Nov 16 '18 at 20:28
One of the first things I did after the new solution was to edit one of the files.... and so it messed up the repository a bit. If I bypassed the repository, I feel it would easier to correct something if I edited the remote files. I would just re-download and overwrite them. I dont have sensitive data or anything like that, it was just because of my lack of self discipline to not edit the remote files.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 22:03
One of the first things I did after the new solution was to edit one of the files.... and so it messed up the repository a bit. If I bypassed the repository, I feel it would easier to correct something if I edited the remote files. I would just re-download and overwrite them. I dont have sensitive data or anything like that, it was just because of my lack of self discipline to not edit the remote files.
– Yoda
Nov 16 '18 at 22:03
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53338158%2fhow-to-automatically-download-files-from-github-without-copying-the-repository%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
