Update transmission

[ilvalle@…]

The release 1.80 is available.

[matthijs]

By now, it seems 2.0 is also available (2.3.6.0 still has 1.72).

[matthijs]

And by now, 2.04 is also released. I've just looked through the changelog, and there have been a lot of changes, but none that look like they should cause problems. This upgrade does need good testing, though.

[ilvalle@…]

I built the new one ( version 2.04); if somebody want to try it is available Here

[matthijs]

Did you use an svn checkout for building? If so, could you provide a patch? That will save us work :-) You should be able to just call "svn diff" from within the fon/transmission directory.

[ilvalle@…]

Libevent patch

[ilvalle@…]

Transmission 2.04 patch

[ilvalle@…]

I made a few changes in the transmission patches to built the 2.04 version. Simply the patches was to old. I upgraded also the libevent to the 1.4.13 version (from the 2.* release is no longer included in transmission). I hope that the patches are enough to built the new version

[matthijs]

I'll have a look soon, thanks!

[matthijs]

Hi ilvalle,

I've looked at the patches, they look good. Your libevent patch prompted me to backport some OpenWRT build system changes (in particular support for PKG_INSTALL:=1), so I can use the libevent files from OpenWRT again, instead of your adapted patch. For the transmission patch, the differences between the OpenWRT version and our version are a bit bigger, so I'll stick to your patch there. A few questions, though:

• I see you've removed a patch. I assume that is because it's only debug stuff and you didn't feel like updating it (and right you are, there)?
• You've moved a bit of the crypt patch out into a second patch. Any reason you didn't just update that part in the original crypt patch?
• You make some changes to the (default) config. Are those needed to get 2.04 working, or are they just separate optimizations. In either case, what are they for exactly?

Finally, is it ok if I credit you in the SVN log for this patch? If so, do you have a real name I could use there?

[matthijs]

Hm, it seems the memory footprint patch was imported upstream, so it didn't apply anymore (perhaps you've forgotten to remove it in your patch?). I've slightly modified your patch to include the -lcrypt in the patch instead of the Makefile, to keep the changes grouped a bit better.

2.04 seems to work now. As soon as you answer my questions, I'll go ahead with committing it (I've just committed the libevent changes).

[matthijs]

Any chance you could respond to my questions? Or are you on holidays? :-)

[ilvalle@…]

Hi, I'm sorry I'm very late (I was on holidays)

Replying to matthijs:

Hi ilvalle, I've looked at the patches, they look good. Your libevent patch prompted me to backport some OpenWRT build system changes (in particular support for PKG_INSTALL:=1), so I can use the libevent files from OpenWRT again, instead of your adapted patch. For the transmission patch, the differences between the OpenWRT version and our version are a bit bigger, so I'll stick to your patch there. A few questions, though: * I see you've removed a patch. I assume that is because it's only debug stuff and you didn't feel like updating it (and right you are, there)?

Yes, it is

* You've moved a bit of the crypt patch out into a second patch. Any reason you didn't just update that part in the original crypt patch?

I didn't change any part of that patch. It was just a test

* You make some changes to the (default) config. Are those needed to get 2.04 working, or are they just separate optimizations. In either case, what are they for exactly?

I just changed the umask.

Finally, is it ok if I credit you in the SVN log for this patch? If so, do you have a real name I could use there?

Paolo Valleri is ok,

paolo

[matthijs]

Replying to ilvalle@…:

Hi, I'm sorry I'm very late (I was on holidays)

No problem :-)

I just changed the umask.

Why did you need to change the umask?

In the patch, I see also changes to the alt-speed-enabled and alt-speed-time-enabled values. Are those by accident?

[anonymous]

Replying to matthijs:

Replying to ilvalle@…:

Hi, I'm sorry I'm very late (I was on holidays)

No problem :-)

I just changed the umask.

Why did you need to change the umask?

I done also some changes in the samba config (to access without password or something) and this umask was needed to delete the files downloaded by transmission.

In the patch, I see also changes to the alt-speed-enabled and alt-speed-time-enabled values. Are those by accident?

No, by default the download/upload rate are limited

[matthijs]

Replying to anonymous:

I done also some changes in the samba config (to access without password or something) and this umask was needed to delete the files downloaded by transmission.

Ok, but then I'll not include that in the repository.

In the patch, I see also changes to the alt-speed-enabled and alt-speed-time-enabled values. Are those by accident?

No, by default the download/upload rate are limited

So you mean that, with your changes, the rates are limited by default. Why is that needed?

[matthijs]

(In [1741]) Update Transmission to 2.04.

• Update the crypt patch to apply to 2.04.
• Move the -lcrypt additions in the crypt patch to more logical places.
• Remove the memory_footprint patch, this has been applied upstream.
• Depend on libevent, since that is no longer bundled with transmission.
• Update the mk_fon_img.sh script to get the new version and include libevent.

Note that this is not a verbatim copy from the Transmission 2.04 version from OpenWRT, since there were a bunch of changes we didn't need and our version of Transmission has also a bunch of changes (in the config file, init scripts, etc.).

Based on a patch by Paolo Valleri, closes #564.