Comment 20 for bug 230973

a separate thread seems reasonable, but...
isn't the upnp stuff needed when sending the inf? or we could treat a client as passive until upnp has done its magic and then switch any already logged in hubs to active when upnp is done...

as to native vs included, it's a matter of settings in the build script, and linux isn't using our build script anyway so it's really up to them...

what was/is wrong with miniupnp? ugly code? bad api? unstable?