[PC-BSD Pbi-dev] qBittorrent v1.3.1 PBI Posting

Kris Moore kris at pcbsd.com
Tue Feb 3 09:35:45 PST 2009

Adam Hopstetter wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:45:29 -0500
>> Adam Hopstetter <ahopstetter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>        Now as far as the ports go .... I'm in full agreement!
>>> However, I have not been able to successfully get in touch with the
>>> port maintainers. There are two ports in question
>>> net-p2p/rblibtorrent/ and net-p2p/qbittorrent/. Unfortunately I'm
>>> starting to feel as if they really aren't being maintained .... it's
>>> been over 9 months since the last update for these 2 ports. (While
>>> the developers have  been updating the source constantly throughout
>>> 2008).
>> Please fill a PR with the update in question; if the maintainers don't
>> respond in a timely manner it will be committed via maintainer timeout.
>> Please drop linimon at freebsd.org an email describing your efforts to
>> contact the maintainers, update the port, etc. He's the one from
>> portmngr@ that handles this king of issues.
>> Thank you,
> All,
>        Been doing research on this issue as it relates to the 
> qbittorrent and rblibtorrent ports and have encountered a few potential 
> hangups.
>        First of all, please forgive me for being a "newbie" at 
> interacting with the FreeBSD/PC-BSD dev groups (not a newbie at c/c++ 
> ;)   )... I've simply never have participated till now. That said, I've 
> taken much from our beloved FreeBSD open-OS and now want to give back 
> and absolutely love what PC-BSD is aimed at accomplishing.
>        Now ... all that said ... the last thing I want to do is waste 
> anyones time (especially yours) ... so please, would everyone bear with 
> a probably too-long message here and give me insight as to how I should 
> proceed!
>        First to address Ion-Mihai ... I received your mail regarding 
> submiting an e-mail to linimon at freebsd.org. Appreciate it!
>        However, sorry "newbie" here  ... PR = "Patch Request" ??? If So 
> (or whatever you mean) ... is there some official document I can obtain 
> or format I'm to follow???
>        Further, apparently, my old e-mail provider was having issues 
> when I attempted to contact the port maintainers previously (found this 
> out by other known contacts not receiving my e-mails .... now I'm solid 
> on GMAIL ... that said ... I'm copying the port maintainers on this 
> e-mail ... and for their benefit  this e-mail regards upgrading the 
> net-p2p/qbittorrent port to the latest v1.3.1 release).
>        Now to the business of the ports themselves ... after researching 
> ... there appear to be 3 ports that rely on net-p2p/rblibtorrent ... 
> net-p2p/hrktorrent, net-p2p/sharktorrent and net-p2p/qbittorrent. 
> Apparrently if we upgrade rblibtorrent to version 0.14.1 (required for 
> the new qbittorrent 1.3.1) it will definately break sharktorrent and 
> possibly break hrktorrent (at least in my testing).
>        -- sharktorrent -- Definately breaks with '/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: 
> sharktorrent: Undefined symbol 
> "_ZN10libtorrent7sessionC1ERKNS_11fingerprintE"'
>        -- hrktorrent - Appears to function properly (but appearances are 
> deceiving) ... but during the make process for core.cpp ... it complains 
> with the following messages ...
>              core.cpp: In member function 'int CCore::Run()':
>             core.cpp:246: warning: '__comp_ctor ' is deprecated 
> (declared at /usr/local/include/libtorrent/torrent_info.hpp:132)
>             core.cpp:253: warning: 'add_torrent' is deprecated (declared 
> at /usr/local/include/libtorrent/session.hpp:202)
>              But again, ... seems to function probably ... in my testing 
> of it's "finite features".
>          -- qbittorrent (of course works flawlessly) :)
>          Now, worthy of noting .... sharktorrent has extremely outdated 
> source ... still at ... and hasn't been worked on since 
> July 2007. Even worse the interface it provides is WEAK (in my humble 
> opinion). Is such old beta??? source code worth maintaining ???
>           hrktorrent (a console based torrent client) is being actively 
> updated however and deserves attention as many MAY seek to wrap 
> web-based (or other) interfaces around it for any number of centralized 
> torrent server apps. Which (of course) qbittorrent already has a nice 
> web-based centralized torrent server built-in. But is Nice thought anyway!
>           Finally, I've noticed ... that there is a 
> net-p2p/rblibtorrent-devel/ port, which is a slightly higher version 
> than rblibtorrent-0.13 currently in the ports.
>           Now to my question ... Would it be possible to upgrade 
> rblibtorrent-devel to version 0.14.1 and making qbittorrent rely depend 
> on this ??? (thus not breaking hrktorrent or sharktorrent!!!). Problems 
> I can foresee there (of course) is that if one were to attempt to 
> install hrktorrent/sharktorrent and qbittorrent ... they would most 
> certainly experience library/linking issues! (or port build issues). But 
> this would make the qbittorrent port upgradable.
>           So I'm almost certain these are the reasons the ports have not 
> been updated as of yet ... even though I've yet to speak with the 
> maintainers. Unfortunately though ... it seems that qbittorrent is the 
> only active open-sourced project fully leveraging the updates to 
> rblibtorrent (and in FreeBSD is suffering at the expense of shark/hrk).
>           Lastly ... and thanks for hanging in there with me All ... one 
> of the advantages of the PC-BSD PBI installation structure is that 
> conflicting libraries can be installed in a isolated fashion (an 
> isolated program container/bucket if you will) which eliminate run-time 
> library/linking issues ... but of course not building ones.
>           So (now that the background/research has been stated) ...  the 
> directed questions/comments ...
>                 Kris ... if I'm unable to get these ports updated ... 
> are there exceptions in the pcbsd pbi-dev for situations like these???


Our prefered method of PBI building is to "piggyback" off the ports 
tree, so that when the associated port gets updated, the PBI will be 
rebuilt automatically as well for both 32bit / 64bit.

That being said, if there is some reason that wont work, like a PBI for 
a program not in ports, or the port isn't being maintained, we can make 
an exception and approve the 3rd party PBI manually. Its just more a 
pain for you in the long run, since you'll need to update the PBI 
manually, as opposed to our server doing all the grunt-work from the 
port for you.


Kris Moore
PC-BSD Software

More information about the Pbi-dev mailing list