Azureus on OpenBSD - BSD

This is a discussion on Azureus on OpenBSD - BSD ; Hello all, I was wondering if anybody has had any luck getting Azureus (a BitTorrent client) to run on OpenBSD? Even when I download the snapshot and the two extra jars (log4j and commons) to run in console mode I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Azureus on OpenBSD

  1. Azureus on OpenBSD

    Hello all,

    I was wondering if anybody has had any luck getting Azureus (a
    BitTorrent client) to run on OpenBSD?

    Even when I download the snapshot and the two extra jars (log4j and
    commons) to run in console mode I get a whole bunch of exceptions and
    then nothing, but it stays running until I hit ^C.

    I currently have jdk-1.4.2 installed and the machine is chewing away at
    1.5, but since the home for Azureus says 1.4.x+, I thought I'd try. The
    machine itself is -current as of about a week after the release of 3.8.

    Any suggestions/hints/tips/etc.. are welcome, as well as suggestions for
    another GUI BT cleint to use on OpenBSD instead of Azureus.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. Re: Azureus on OpenBSD

    Cory C. Albrecht wrote:

    > Any suggestions/hints/tips/etc.. are welcome, as well as suggestions for
    > another GUI BT cleint to use on OpenBSD instead of Azureus.


    BitTorrent-gui, from net/BitTorrent.
    It's probably quite spartan compared to Azureus.

    --
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

  3. Re: Azureus on OpenBSD

    Cory C. Albrecht wrote:

    > Hello all,
    >
    > I was wondering if anybody has had any luck getting Azureus (a
    > BitTorrent client) to run on OpenBSD?
    >
    > Even when I download the snapshot and the two extra jars (log4j and
    > commons) to run in console mode I get a whole bunch of exceptions and
    > then nothing, but it stays running until I hit ^C.
    >
    > I currently have jdk-1.4.2 installed and the machine is chewing away at
    > 1.5, but since the home for Azureus says 1.4.x+, I thought I'd try. The
    > machine itself is -current as of about a week after the release of 3.8.
    >
    > Any suggestions/hints/tips/etc.. are welcome, as well as suggestions for
    > another GUI BT cleint to use on OpenBSD instead of Azureus.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.


    Ktorrent works http://ktorrent.pwsp.net/

    I didn't know Openbsd ran java (licencing issue).

    gtoomey

  4. Re: Azureus on OpenBSD

    Gregory Toomey wrote:
    > Cory C. Albrecht wrote:


    > I didn't know Openbsd ran java (licencing issue).
    >
    > gtoomey


    It does, but it isn't a package and will not build automagically from
    ports (it requires you to accept the license). Additionally, it cannot
    be bootstrapped on OpenBSD, so lots of workarounds and hours of
    compiling are necessary to get it to work.

    joachim

  5. Re: Azureus on OpenBSD

    In article <43810390$0$44038$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl>, jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl wrote:
    >Gregory Toomey wrote:
    >> I didn't know Openbsd ran java (licencing issue).


    >It does, but it isn't a package and will not build automagically from
    >ports (it requires you to accept the license). Additionally, it cannot
    >be bootstrapped on OpenBSD, so lots of workarounds and hours of
    >compiling are necessary to get it to work.


    Actually, devel/jdk/1.42 and devel/jdk/1.5 do appear to be bootstrapping
    themselves. Both require the previous version before itself to be
    installed in order to build, and both require source plus some patches
    from elsewhere which they compile to make into a fake package to
    install. Even though you have to go and manually download the distfiles,
    you aren't downloading just a binary package which runs without needing
    to compile.

  6. Re: Azureus on OpenBSD

    Cory C. Albrecht wrote:
    > In article <43810390$0$44038$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl>, jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl wrote:
    >>Gregory Toomey wrote:
    >>> I didn't know Openbsd ran java (licencing issue).

    >
    >>It does, but it isn't a package and will not build automagically from
    >>ports (it requires you to accept the license). Additionally, it cannot
    >>be bootstrapped on OpenBSD, so lots of workarounds and hours of
    >>compiling are necessary to get it to work.

    >
    > Actually, devel/jdk/1.42 and devel/jdk/1.5 do appear to be bootstrapping
    > themselves. Both require the previous version before itself to be
    > installed in order to build, and both require source plus some patches
    > from elsewhere which they compile to make into a fake package to
    > install. Even though you have to go and manually download the distfiles,
    > you aren't downloading just a binary package which runs without needing
    > to compile.


    If that is bootstrapping, my definition needs updating. No sarcasm here
    - just that I wouldn't have called it bootstrapping.

    And the hours of compiling still stand... ;-)

    Joachim

  7. Re: Azureus on OpenBSD

    In article <4384f9d5$0$54036$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>, jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl wrote:
    >Cory C. Albrecht wrote:
    >> In article <43810390$0$44038$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl>,

    > jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl wrote:
    >>>Gregory Toomey wrote:
    >>>> I didn't know Openbsd ran java (licencing issue).


    >>>It does, but it isn't a package and will not build automagically from
    >>>ports (it requires you to accept the license). Additionally, it cannot
    >>>be bootstrapped on OpenBSD, so lots of workarounds and hours of
    >>>compiling are necessary to get it to work.


    >> Actually, devel/jdk/1.42 and devel/jdk/1.5 do appear to be bootstrapping
    >> themselves. Both require the previous version before itself to be
    >> installed in order to build, and both require source plus some patches
    >> from elsewhere which they compile to make into a fake package to
    >> install. Even though you have to go and manually download the distfiles,
    >> you aren't downloading just a binary package which runs without needing
    >> to compile.


    >If that is bootstrapping, my definition needs updating. No sarcasm here
    >- just that I wouldn't have called it bootstrapping.


    Implied was the fact that jdk-1.4.2 requires 1.3.x to be installed in
    order to use it to build 1.4.2, and 1.5 requires 1.4.2 to be installed
    to, again, use it to build 1.5. It needs an earlier version of itself to
    build itself, and that is pretty much bootstrapping.

    What is your version of "bootstrapping"?

  8. Re: Azureus on OpenBSD

    Cory C. Albrecht wrote:
    > In article <4384f9d5$0$54036$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>, jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl wrote:
    >>Cory C. Albrecht wrote:
    >>> In article <43810390$0$44038$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl>,

    >> jKILLSPAM.schipper@math.uu.nl wrote:
    >>>>Gregory Toomey wrote:
    >>>>> I didn't know Openbsd ran java (licencing issue).

    >
    >>>>It does, but it isn't a package and will not build automagically from
    >>>>ports (it requires you to accept the license). Additionally, it cannot
    >>>>be bootstrapped on OpenBSD, so lots of workarounds and hours of
    >>>>compiling are necessary to get it to work.

    >
    >>> Actually, devel/jdk/1.42 and devel/jdk/1.5 do appear to be bootstrapping
    >>> themselves. Both require the previous version before itself to be
    >>> installed in order to build, and both require source plus some patches
    >>> from elsewhere which they compile to make into a fake package to
    >>> install. Even though you have to go and manually download the distfiles,
    >>> you aren't downloading just a binary package which runs without needing
    >>> to compile.

    >
    >>If that is bootstrapping, my definition needs updating. No sarcasm here
    >>- just that I wouldn't have called it bootstrapping.

    >
    > Implied was the fact that jdk-1.4.2 requires 1.3.x to be installed in
    > order to use it to build 1.4.2, and 1.5 requires 1.4.2 to be installed
    > to, again, use it to build 1.5. It needs an earlier version of itself to
    > build itself, and that is pretty much bootstrapping.
    >
    > What is your version of "bootstrapping"?


    I don't have too much of a definition - just a vague notion that
    'bootstrapping' should allow whatever-it-is to pull itself out of the
    swamp by it's own hair, *using only basic utilities*.

    I find gcc's 'make bootstrap' quite ok, as it uses only a C compiler
    which I consider a basic utility. Java's bootstrap, to me, isn't, as it
    uses a JDK which is a) not a basic utility, as far as I'm concerned and
    b) required to be a pretty specific version (whereas gcc can be built
    with most decent compilers).

    Not a very good definition, come to think of it... ;-)

    Joachim

+ Reply to Thread