Install zip and use
zip -r foo.zip .
You can use the flags -0 (none) to -9 (best) to change compressionrate
Excluding files can be done via the -x flag. From the man-page:
Explicitly exclude the specified files, as in:
zip -r foo foo -x \*.o
which will include the contents of foo in foo....
There is a Signature field listed via rpm -qpi package.rpm, e.g.,:
[vagrant@vm-one ~]$ rpm -qpi puppet-3.7.4-1.el6.noarch.rpm
Name : puppet
Version : 3.7.4
Release : 1.el6
Install Date: (not installed)
Group : System Environment/Base
Size : 6532300
License : ASL 2.0
Signature : RSA/SHA512, Tue 27 Jan ...
Over the years, I’ve accumulated a large number of .deb packages with non-standard names, and I don’t remember running into any problems. “Famous” packages with non-standard names that people might come across nowadays include google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb and steam.deb. (In both cases, the fixed, versionless name ensures that a stable URL can be ...
I guess many people who come via Google to this question mean "archive and compress" when they write "zip". An alternative to the zip format is tar:
tar -czf copy.tar.gz whatever/
where the compressed archive file will be copy.tar.gz and the contents will be everything in the folder whatever.
create a new archive
-z, --gzip, --gunzip ...
The closest thing I've come across to a tool like this is pkgs.org:
pkgs.org - Linux Software Catalog and Packages Search The pkgs.org is
created to provide you with the simplest method of searching and
downloading the newest versions of the best Linux software - without
the usual excessive popups or spyware. Also use it to find
alternatives to ...
It took a few tries, but I think I comprehend what you're asking now.
There are several possible reasons for a distribution to patch given software before packaging. I'll try and give a non-exclusive list; I'm sure there are other possible reasons.
For purposes of this discussion, "upstream" refers to the original source code from the official developers ...
In a strict sense a binary file is one which is not character encoded as human readable text. More colloquially, a "binary" refers to a file that is compiled, executable code, although the file itself may not be executable (referring not so much to permissions as to the capacity to be run alone; some binary code files such as libraries are compiled, but ...
As several responders said, it is not so much that a certain package format is clearly superior. Technically, they may be more or less comparable. From my perspective a lot of the differences, and why people prefer one over the other, have to do with:
The philosophy of the original package design and the target audience
The community size, and by extension,...
You can use the Repology website.
Repology analyzes a lot of package repositories and other sources* comparing packages versions across them and gathering other information. Repology shows you in which repositories a given project is packaged, which version is the latest and which needs updating, who maintains the package, and other related information.
From the top of my head, in addition to @Shadur's answer:
Some distributions discourage using embedding libraries or files provided by another package. For example, a lot of software contains embedded JQuery, but Debian has a libjs-jquery package providing it.
Often upstream mingles security patches and backward incompatible changes, e.g. depends on newer ...
The file names are standardized mainly for the benefit of the archive maintenance software and the local cache.
In the old days, before the m68k architecture was added to Debian, file names used "package_version.deb", with no issues. The architecture name was added to the file name when the archive software needed to store i386 and m68k packages of the same ...
My understanding is that you want to distribute/deploy a package to multiple Debian based distributions.
In the Debian/Ubuntu world, you should not provide individual .deb file to download and install. Instead you should provide an APT repository. (in the Fedora/Red Hat/CentOS world I would make a similar advice to provide a YUM repository). Not only does ...
In general, this warning is completely harmless and normal. When dpkg is removing (or trying to remove) a package, it removes all files and directories which were created as part of that package installation. Now, suppose there are some files in a directory that is a candidate for removal in such a scenario, and dpkg doesn't know about these files. This ...
I'm an occasional Guix contributor. Yes, you can run Guix packages on top of other distributions (GuixSD is a standalone distribution of Guix, whereas Guix itself is a package manager, so it can be used under any other distribution). The Binary installation section shows you how to easily set up Guix on top of another GNU/Linux distribution. You can also ...
To find out which GPG key in your RPM DB signed a specfic rpm, do this:
List all the GPG keys in your RPM DB:
$ rpm -qa gpg-pubkey*
First ensure the rpm in question is signed with a key in your RPM DB:
$ rpm -K hp/mlnx-en-utils-2.2-184.108.40.206.g0055740.rhel6u4.x86_64.rpm
Yes, it will work in the same way as other PKGBUILDs with binary sources - extract it and copy files. The only thing which should be mentioned is that deb-archive consists of 3 other files - debian-binary, control.tar.gz, data.tar.gz. makepkg will extract only first-level archive and then you should manually extract data.tar.gz.
tar -zxvf ...
(I'll refer to original authors or original software as upstream authors and upstream software because that's what I'm used to calling them.)
From the end-user's perspective, it's nice to have a single place to report bugs, rather than having to sign up for accounts in various upstream bugtrackers for all the software they use.
From an upstream author's ...
Software from the distribution is mechanically linked consistently, and expects to find libavcodec.so.54, so the unversioned name isn't required for any of the pre-built packages.
If you're building software yourself, however, it's common to use -lavcodec or similar, which will find libavcodec.so unversioned. Similarly, build scripts may expect these names ...
See Debian Release Management; for Debian 9, it stated:
As always, Debian 9 “Stretch” will be released “when it’s ready”.
and that’s the general rule for all releases.
The planned release date for Debian 9, June 17 2017, was announced on May 26 of that year. Debian 10 is planned for July 6 2019, as announced on June 11.
Generally speaking, you’re right ...
Distrowatch has a table show what versions of software specific distros include. If you open your preferred distos in different tabs you can see what version of GIMP they have.
Here's Mint, Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora, there's a radio button to choose between seeing only the major packages and all packages. Select all packages if your package isn't on the ...
FPM can build debs/rpms from python packages on PyPI or from a local setup.py file. You can build a deb with
fpm -s python -t deb $package-name-on-pypi
fpm -s python -t deb setup.py
Building packages in other formats only requires you to change the -t (target type) parameter.
To produce debs I can also recommend python-stdeb.
If you make a Debian package, you should at least glance through the Debian Policy Manual and the Debian New Maintainers' Guide, as well as the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. If you want to become a Debian developer, you need to read the policy and the maintainters' guide.
The policy manual explains where various file types go, when they need to be found by ...