Package Details: openssh-hpn-git 7.5.P1.r74.ga0c37a72-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/openssh-hpn-git.git (read-only)
Package Base: openssh-hpn-git
Description: A Secure SHell server/client fork with High Performance patches included
Upstream URL: http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/
Licenses: custom:BSD
Conflicts: openssh, openssh-hpn
Provides: openssh, openssh-hpn
Submitter: jyantis
Maintainer: rtfm3514
Last Packager: rtfm3514
Votes: 21
Popularity: 0.516442
First Submitted: 2015-04-04 01:59
Last Updated: 2017-10-21 08:15

Dependencies (8)

Required by (150)

Sources (7)

Latest Comments

rtfm3514 commented on 2017-06-10 06:43

Forced building against openssl-1.0

I am not happy with the solution though as I haven't found a clean way of forcing openssh to build against a specific openssl version.

I tried pkg-config, but either it doesn't work or I am doing it wrong. Now I am using a hack, where I am using prepare() to symlink the openssl-1.0 files into the build directory and pass them to the configure script via the --with-ssl-dir option.

If anyone has a cleaner way of doing this, please feel free to share it. Any help is greatly appreciated.

I also had a look at the openssl-1.1.0 patch the openssh package from the core repo is using: It does apply cleanly but it is not enough. I am afraid we will have to wait for upstream to get a proper openssl-1.1.0 patch.

ansatz commented on 2017-04-29 15:36

Build fails with openssl 1.1.0.

Debian bug tracker points to the upstream not supporting openssl 1.1.0 yet:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=857621

So either wait until the upstream gets this sorted out or add extra/openssl-1.0 to dependencies.

rtfm3514 commented on 2016-06-02 19:06

Updated to new upstream version, fixing NONE cipher rekeying issue.

rtfm3514 commented on 2016-05-26 19:26

@SRChiP: Thank you for pointing that out.

I dug a little, seems like the correct dep should be "linux-api-headers", which is present by default as a dep of glibc and I am not quite sure, if I should still list it as a makedep. Normally, base and base-devel packages are not supposed to be listed as deps, but I don't know about "indirect" base and base-devel packages.

In any case, I removed the incorrect "linux-headers" dep for now. Please let me know, if this causes any unexpected breakage.

SRChiP commented on 2016-05-25 19:02

This package depends on linux-headers, but it works fine with only linux-zen-headers. And linux-zen-headers does not conflict with linux-headers. Installing linux-headers is a workaround, so should not be actually needed (in some cases).

rtfm3514 commented on 2016-05-25 16:47

Updated package to reflect current upstream version.

Thanks, for the reminder and sorry for the delay. I actually signed up to be notified on GitHub of any upstream change, however, it seems that is not working as expected.

Please note, there is a problem with unencrypted transfers >1GB still under investigation: https://github.com/rapier1/openssh-portable/issues/5

ggppdd commented on 2016-02-07 21:16

Great! Thank you for your work.

rtfm3514 commented on 2015-12-07 17:58

I cleaned up the PKGBUILD a bit and dropped the netcat dependency as the package seems to build just fine without any netcat installed. I have no idea where it originally came from, but I suspect that it might be required for building openssh with connection tests enabled (which this PKGBUILD does not use).

rtfm3514 commented on 2015-12-06 22:22

I updated the package to reflect the current upstream version. Strictly speaking, this is not necessary: Due to the way this package is using the pkgver() function, it should always built the current git version from the master branch, even if the version number seems outdated. Makepkg will overwrite the version string automatically. However, there seems to be a slight problem with the way the PKGBUILD derives version numbers from upstream tags. I believe I fixed it for now, but I will re-visit this later, with more time. In the meantime, let me know if you encounter problems like, e.g. installing newer versions being incorrectly flagged as "downgrades" by pacman.

rtfm3514 commented on 2015-11-30 12:03

Hi, I just adopted this package out of the goodness of my heart (and because I am using it ;) ). If anyone wants it back, feel free to e-mail me. I will also update to current Master soon but first I have to check what I need to do for changing the version number/maintainer. Please stand by :)

All comments