Opened 8 years ago

Closed 7 years ago

Last modified 7 years ago

#5330 closed Enhancement (wontfix)

Please include command line tools with Mac releases

Reported by: Renara Owned by: livings124
Priority: Normal Milestone: None Set
Component: Mac Client Version: 2.77
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc:

Description

I'm not sure why the command line tool (transmission-remote) isn't packaged with the Mac version of Transmission by default, but it'd be nice to see it included in future releases as having to build the program yourself is a bit of a pain to enable such a useful feature.

I know it's not exactly a big user-facing feature, but it's necessary to really get the most out of any scripting such as the download completion script, and many common script snippets on the forums require transmission-remote in order to add various useful additions such as applescript droplets, login items etc.

A possible compromise might be to include it, but require the user to enable it in the preferences window, causing it to be launched with Transmission only if they feel they need it. I'm sure an option would fit in near the Call Script section of Transfers/Management?.

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by jordan

  • Version changed from 2.77+ to 2.77

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by livings124

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

The Transmission Mac download is meant to be very basic, as the vast majority of users only need the app (and the built-in web ui). The number of users that need the cli is low, and those that do need it are sophisticated enough to build it themselves.

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by Renara

  • Resolution wontfix deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

But by the same token changing the precompiled binaries to include the command line stuff is a tiny change, and one that doesn't add complexity to the client as anyone not using it would never notice it's there anyway. Meanwhile users that do need it have to go through the hassle of building each version of Transmission themselves. It's actually more trouble to not include the command line interface as a result.

Also, casual users that wouldn't be able/willing to build transmission themselves may still have need of the command line interface, as while they may not be able to script a feature on their own, people on the forums have been happy to provide snippets, and things like Applescript droplets can be easily shared and used by novice users.

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by livings124

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

That's one more bit of functionality that has to be supported within the app itself that few users will use. The CLI, unlike the web ui, is not meant for the novice or average user. I see the use case for this, but it's something that's not going to happen.

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by Renara

What do you mean by supported? The feature surely is maintained regardless.

Even so this is partly why I suggested having it included by disabled but default with a user option to enable it. That wouldn't necessarily just be for the Mac client only though. By enabling it they would be indicating they understand how to use it (either via their own scripts or via ones they've been given/found) and can provide any necessary warning that users are on their own when it comes to getting it to work. Otherwise it's just another file that has no impact on use, but is actually there for those that do want it; after all, I think it's a leap to assume that building from source is easy for someone that would want transmission-remote as there are plenty of Mac users that have used the occasional Terminal command but has never built from source, and as I say it's possible to get pre made scripts as well.

I mean, we already have the Call Script option under Transfers/Management?, which isn't exactly a casual user option in the first place, but isn't very useful on its own without transmission-remote; sure there are some things you can do with it, but most tasks I can think of are better implemented using results from transmission-remote.

Last edited 7 years ago by Renara (previous) (diff)

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by Renara

  • Resolution wontfix deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by John Clay

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

As has been mentioned above, the benefit of including binaries in the main download is negligible to non-existant. The users that are advanced enough to know about and use the CLI tools will also know how to download and compile from source. Likewise, the users not advanced enough to how to use the CLI tools will likely attempt to use them incorrectly, resulting in unneeded support requests.

comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by Renara

  • Resolution wontfix deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Firstly; knowing how to use a command-line program and knowing how to compile from source are not the same thing at all, especially since a lot of common transmission-remote snippets are already readily available which means that it would be fairly easy to use transmission-remote with rudimentary command line skills; a fair number of Mac users have basic command line skills, but may never have compiled anything from source.

Secondly; simply including the command line interface binary isn't going to result in some huge influx of clueless users using it, as they are unlikely to even realise it's there in the first place. However on the other hand, having the command line interface included in the main app is a big convenience to those users that do want to use the command line interface, as compiling from source is a significant and unnecessary step for a feature that is otherwise harmless if it's not being used. These days an extra command-line binary in an app package isn't going cause someone's computer to melt under the stress of storing all those bits.

For users that want to run a download script on Tranmission, potentially one they've found on the forums or elsewhere, if it requires transmission-remote then currently that script will simply fail with no obvious error. If anything that is more confusing as that is a use case in which a user doesn't know they need transmission-remote, or that it isn't packaged with Transmission by default. Compare that to users intentionally trying to use transmission-remote or using scripts that depend upon it; in the former case the user isn't likely to attempt it without some knowledge or reference, while the latter should just work (unlike now) If it's okay for any user to attach a download script then there really is no difference to allowing them to use transmission-remote "out of the box".

comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by livings124

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

This is an application - bundling other applications that are used separately is not something we want to do. Please stop reopening this.

comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by egypturnash

  • Resolution wontfix deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Another user weighing in for this.

Please, at least put the transmission-remote binary online somewhere if you don't want J. Random User to know about it. Note that it's totally unsupported. There's a huge gap between "people who hack up the occasional script" and "people who are comfortable compiling something from the source". I just want to hack up a quick script so my machine can automatically pause torrents when I'm on the coffee shop's network, I don't wanna get XCode and compile the whole thing.

You could maybe even hide the transmission-remote binary inside the the app package if you're paranoid that clueless noobs will saturate the devs with support requests.

comment:11 Changed 7 years ago by livings124

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

I would say more people would be comfortable building from source than hacking up a script. This is something that's not going to be done.

comment:12 Changed 7 years ago by RyanMarcus

I would say more people would be comfortable building from source than hacking up a script.

This may have been true of the computer scientists of the 90s, but from my experience, this is very, very wrong.

I found this bug report while trying to figure out how to access the Transmission CLI I was used to on Debian from my Mac. You can easily install the command-line utilities using Homebrew: http://brew.sh

Simply use:

brew install transmission

Obviously this isn't supported by the official Transmission team, and is subject to break at anytime, provided with no warranty, yadayadayada.

ivings124, I love Transmission, and I'm no stranger to the effort that goes into managing OSS. That's work that's generally unpaid. Thanks for everything y'all do.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.