starred/qBittorrent

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent.git synced 2026-03-02 22:57:32 -05:00

Better built-in updater #10232

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-21 20:38:44 -05:00 by deekerman · 6 comments

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:38:44 -05:00

Owner

Originally created by @andreibereczki on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020).

Please provide the following information

qBittorrent version and Operating System

latest - Window 10 Pro 18362.778 x64

If on linux, libtorrent-rasterbar and Qt version

Running Windows

What is the problem

The only fact i hate about qBittorrent is that when i have to update, i have to manually download a setup program and run it, and close qBittorrent if it's running

What is the expected behavior

Ideal would be for qBittorrent to have a smart enough updater, so it can kill itself, install itself and then launch the new version after install, with as minimal user interaction as possible.

Steps to reproduce

install an outdated version of qBittorrent then run through the update process.

Extra info(if any)

This should go on the wishlist, it's totally a nice to have. IT would still make this awesome client that much more complete and mature.

Originally created by @andreibereczki on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020). **Please provide the following information** ### qBittorrent version and Operating System latest - Window 10 Pro 18362.778 x64 ### If on linux, libtorrent-rasterbar and Qt version Running Windows ### What is the problem The only fact i hate about qBittorrent is that when i have to update, i have to manually download a setup program and run it, and close qBittorrent if it's running ### What is the expected behavior Ideal would be for qBittorrent to have a smart enough updater, so it can kill itself, install itself and then launch the new version after install, with as minimal user interaction as possible. ### Steps to reproduce install an outdated version of qBittorrent then run through the update process. ### Extra info(if any) This should go on the wishlist, it's totally a nice to have. IT would still make this awesome client that much more complete and mature.

deekerman

2026-02-21 20:38:44 -05:00

closed this issue
added the
Feature request

OS: Windows

Duplicate
labels

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:38:49 -05:00

Author

Owner

@joseeloren commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020):

Absolutely, I agree. Maybe if I have sometime at the weekend I will try to implement it. I did one autoupdater for a program in wxWidgets, it should be more or less the same for Qt.

@joseeloren commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020): Absolutely, I agree. Maybe if I have sometime at the weekend I will try to implement it. I did one autoupdater for a program in wxWidgets, it should be more or less the same for Qt.

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:38:49 -05:00

Author

Owner

@thalieht commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020):

@sledgehammer999 has rejected this multiple times. Don't do anything unless you get his approval or it will probably be in vain.

@thalieht commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020): @sledgehammer999 has rejected this multiple times. Don't do anything unless you get his approval or it will probably be in vain.

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:38:49 -05:00

Author

Owner

@joseeloren commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020):

Thank you for the comment @thalieht

@joseeloren commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020): Thank you for the comment @thalieht

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:38:49 -05:00

Author

Owner

@thalieht commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020):

Duplicate of #4201 (and many others).

@thalieht commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020): Duplicate of #4201 (and many others).

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:38:49 -05:00

Author

Owner

@andreibereczki commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020):

Well #4201 requests an automatic updater. I want a built-in updater. They're two different things.

Anyways, i read through the linked issues and couldn't really see any legitimate reason behind not implementing this other than @sledgehammer999 saying he doesn't want this to be too userfriendly (really? i mean ... that's weird ...) or that some "filehost wouldn't like it" (this was in relation to the auto-updater topic).

Simply the fact that many people took the time to write an issue about this topic should make you think that it just might be a good idea.

And lastly: i know i said it's a nice to have and i really don't want to insist that any of you implement this (although it would be freakin' awesome) but dismissing it without mentioning any motivation simply sucks. It's disrespectful towards the time i took to put this feature request into writing and the sentiment that was behind it, namely, trying to bring a positive impact towards an, already, awesome application.

@andreibereczki commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020): Well #4201 requests an **automatic** updater. I want a built-in updater. They're two different things. Anyways, i read through the linked issues and couldn't really see any legitimate reason behind not implementing this other than @sledgehammer999 saying he doesn't want this to be **too userfriendly** (really? i mean ... that's weird ...) or that some "filehost wouldn't like it" (this was in relation to the auto-updater topic). Simply the fact that many people took the time to write an issue about this topic should make you think that it just **might** be a good idea. And lastly: i know i said it's a nice to have and i really don't want to insist that any of you implement this (although it would be freakin' awesome) but dismissing it without mentioning any motivation simply sucks. It's disrespectful towards the time i took to put this feature request into writing and the sentiment that was behind it, namely, trying to bring a positive impact towards an, already, awesome application.

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 20:38:49 -05:00

Author

Owner

@FranciscoPombal commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020):

Well #4201 requests an automatic updater. I want a built-in updater. They're two different things.

Kind of a distinction without a difference. The point is that other than update notifications, any other "updating" functionality built-in to qBittorrent is too much.

Anyways, i read through the linked issues and couldn't really see any legitimate reason behind not implementing this other than @sledgehammer999 saying he doesn't want this to be too userfriendly (really? i mean ... that's weird ...) or that some "filehost wouldn't like it" (this was in relation to the auto-updater topic).

Simply the fact that many people took the time to write an issue about this topic should make you think that it just might be a good idea.

And lastly: i know i said it's a nice to have and i really don't want to insist that any of you implement this (although it would be freakin' awesome) but dismissing it without mentioning any motivation simply sucks. It's disrespectful towards the time i took to put this feature request into writing and the sentiment that was behind it, namely, trying to bring a positive impact towards an, already, awesome application.

No one meant any disrespect. You should take the time to read through the related issues. The maintainer has already stated multiple times that silent/automatic/built-in updaters will not be implemented. Here, the maintainer specifically rejects the idea of a built-in updater, even though it might not be "automatic": https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issues/4708#issuecomment-176679785.

Frankly, updating applications is the responsibility of a package manager (while still allowing for source compilation/side-loading of course). Even Android and iOS at least got this somewhat right. The fact that software installation on Windows is still stuck in caveman-tier ways of "ooga booga download exe from website" or "just have every program implement its own separate auto-updater, bro" is not qBIttorrent's problem to solve. There is some light at the end of the tunnel though. Look into ninite, chocolatey, scoop, etc. (basically package managers for Windows).

@FranciscoPombal commented on GitHub (Apr 23, 2020): > Well #4201 requests an **automatic** updater. I want a built-in updater. They're two different things. Kind of a distinction without a difference. The point is that other than update notifications, any other "updating" functionality built-in to qBittorrent is too much. > Anyways, i read through the linked issues and couldn't really see any legitimate reason behind not implementing this other than @sledgehammer999 saying he doesn't want this to be **too userfriendly** (really? i mean ... that's weird ...) or that some "filehost wouldn't like it" (this was in relation to the auto-updater topic). > > Simply the fact that many people took the time to write an issue about this topic should make you think that it just **might** be a good idea. > > And lastly: i know i said it's a nice to have and i really don't want to insist that any of you implement this (although it would be freakin' awesome) but dismissing it without mentioning any motivation simply sucks. It's disrespectful towards the time i took to put this feature request into writing and the sentiment that was behind it, namely, trying to bring a positive impact towards an, already, awesome application. No one meant any disrespect. You should take the time to read through the related issues. The maintainer has already stated multiple times that silent/automatic/built-in updaters will not be implemented. Here, the maintainer specifically rejects the idea of a built-in updater, even though it might not be "automatic": https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issues/4708#issuecomment-176679785. Frankly, updating applications is the responsibility of a _package manager_ (while still allowing for source compilation/side-loading of course). Even Android and iOS at least got this somewhat right. The fact that software installation on Windows is still stuck in caveman-tier ways of "ooga booga download exe from website" or "just have every program implement its own separate auto-updater, bro" is not qBIttorrent's problem to solve. There is some light at the end of the tunnel though. Look into `ninite`, `chocolatey`, `scoop`, etc. (basically package managers for Windows).