Package Details: imagej 2:1.53e-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: imagej
Description: Image manipulation software for scientists
Upstream URL:
Licenses: Public Domain
Submitter: skarn
Maintainer: mschu
Last Packager: mschu
Votes: 65
Popularity: 0.085352
First Submitted: 2009-05-18 15:59
Last Updated: 2020-10-07 20:47

Sources (5)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »

Slann commented on 2020-04-16 10:53

Seems like the checksum for changed. Could you pleas update it? Thank you.

lonaowna commented on 2018-07-28 23:42

In case anyone wants to try out v2: imagej2. Should be installable alongside this package.

aliencam commented on 2018-04-13 21:57

Package dependencies should be for jre8-openjdk, or something other than java-runtime because ImageJ does not run with jre10-openjdk. on my recently installed arch system I originally only had jre10-openjdk, and it fails until installing and setting the default environment to jre8-openjdk

I notified upstream also:

test0 commented on 2017-12-30 18:15

in PKGBUILD please replace: md5sums=('a2e52e97b1c683cb4f614b4d570fb972' with: md5sums=('3defd05424a3e0c99253aec3b6724e95'

mvdb commented on 2017-12-04 14:44

Just want to mention that the md5sum for seems to be outdated. Thanks for maintaining this package!

mschu commented on 2017-07-03 23:08

From now on I will only include versioned .jar files to patch the main distribution.

This should alleviate the problem of breaking checksums.

I will only update to the unversioned .jar if there is a strong reason to do so.

fordprefect commented on 2017-02-23 21:07

checksum for ij.jar changed, please update. thank you.

SammysHP commented on 2017-02-17 20:49

AFAIK version 2 is a completely different piece of software. I don't know if it will replace the 1.x branch.

PS: checksums still not updated.

Archange commented on 2017-02-16 00:46

@mschu: Latest update was from November while one comment from early January was already asking for an update. Granted, they didn’t flag the package, but given how the version number are used here, it makes out-of-date a bit confusing. But an existing non-adressed issue from a comment is equivalent to me as flagged out-of-date.

Now, regarding the orphan: I never said I didn’t intend to respect the rules. An orphan request was filed, so I took a look at the package. Because I, at least, do not automatically orphan even after no answers for 14 days, I want that plus a proof that the next maintainer knows how to fix things.

When looking at the PKGBUILD, I saw the bad shape it was in, I saw no updates since November while evidences suggest that upstream made a release in the meantime (from early December), and thus, I said that if *no updates happens* (which didn’t included a time span, but it implicitly implied the 14 days window at least for me) and someone was actually proposing a fix (which wasn’t the case with only users wanting to bump md5sums), I would indeed accept the orphan request (that I worded disown it, but that is equivalent).

But you’ve update it and now it’s fine, excepted the version number still.

For v2, a closer look at upstream GitHub made me see they’re still not in the final release, but RC58! ( So it’s not definitively ready for packaging.

greyltc commented on 2017-02-16 00:04

Hi mschu, it looks to me like the checksums are still not right here (maybe you've not cleared the old source files before recomputing the checksums?). I'm getting a disagreement for ij.jar. I think it should be a659180b574f80d2704dc1b60a8f19a1