Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 431782 - net-p2p/deluge passes Unicode objects instead of UTF-8 encoded byte-strings to net-libs/rb_libtorrent
Summary: net-p2p/deluge passes Unicode objects instead of UTF-8 encoded byte-strings t...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 426912
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo net-p2p team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-08-17 22:30 UTC by Sergey Galanov
Modified: 2012-08-21 16:42 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Sergey Galanov 2012-08-17 22:30:03 UTC 
Move Storage functionality in Deluge doesn't work with rb_libtorrent 0.16. This happens because recent versions of rb_libtorrent don't include Unicode support by default (and Deluge converts path to Unicode). Instead, there is TORRENT_USE_WSTRING define to enable it.
Comment 1 Rafał Mużyło 2012-08-18 06:11:32 UTC 
That's likely cause what you call "Unicode support" in rb_torrent is actually utf-16 functions meant for Windows only.

That's more than likely insufficient research on deluge side.
Comment 2 Sergey Galanov 2012-08-18 07:03:03 UTC 
Ok, deluge devs actually know about this issue: http://forum.deluge-torrent.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=39701.
Shouldn't 0.16 be masked for use with deluge then?
Comment 3 Rafał Mużyło 2012-08-18 14:53:32 UTC 
The second comment in the upstream bug is just about right - it's a deluge workaround (for a different *Windows*-specific bug) that caused this problem in the first place.
Comment 4 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2012-08-21 12:57:52 UTC 
Isn't this a duplicate of bug #426912?
Comment 5 Rafał Mużyło 2012-08-21 16:42:10 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> Isn't this a duplicate of bug #426912?

Indeed.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 426912 ***