Package Details: hashdeep 4.4-2

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: hashdeep
Description: cross-platform tools to computer hashes, or message digests, for any number of files
Upstream URL:
Licenses: GPL
Submitter: grawity
Maintainer: uffe
Last Packager: grawity
Votes: 89
Popularity: 1.852998
First Submitted: 2015-08-30 12:19
Last Updated: 2015-08-30 12:19

Latest Comments

grensjo commented on 2016-05-22 19:27

Since this pkgbuild compiles hashdeep from source, could you please consider changing the architecture to 'any'? With that change, this package both builds and runs without problems on my Raspberry Pi 3 with Arch Linux ARM.

Celti commented on 2016-01-27 00:02

All git-based packages need a makedepends on git or else they do not build in a clean chroot.

dkaylor commented on 2015-10-13 10:05


dkaylor commented on 2015-06-19 07:56

OK, fixed. Still planning to do the name change to hashdeep, but going to wait until after July 8, just to avoid confusion and hassle.

dkaylor commented on 2015-06-19 07:39

I somehow uploaded an old version, so marked out-of-date, just to shame myself. Fixing momentarily.

dkaylor commented on 2015-06-19 07:19

Initial upload of 4.3-2 to AUR4. PKGBUILD hasn't changed. A 4.4 release is available, and I will update soon.

dkaylor commented on 2015-06-01 08:39

Actually, I see that there is a procedure for merging the comments and votes, etc.

dkaylor commented on 2015-06-01 08:34

Been having a rethink about the name of the package. (See the discussion from last year.) Think it's time to go with the official name of hashdeep, since that is how it's been released upstream for a while now. Since change is coming with the transition to AUR 4 anyway, now is as good a time as any.

So if anyone has any thoughts, let me know soon. As far as I can tell "changing the name of package" basically means orphaning this one, and creating a new one named hashdeep.

dkaylor commented on 2014-06-08 04:54

I'm going to leave the package name as is for now. I know some might prefer the change, but for historical reasons, and following the example of what other distros are doing, I don't want to change it right now.

dkaylor commented on 2014-06-06 16:25

I'm unsure about this one way or the other, at this point. Discussion on aur-general so far is mostly against it, which I take it is what led to your package getting canned. I wasn't privy to that discussion since I didn't subscribe to aur-general until a few hours ago. I admit that was a mistake on my part. In theory I agree the name change should happen, because I think that is what the upstream project is going by now.

All comments