patch to add proxy support from 2.12 to 2.13

[steubens]

Binary package hint: transmission

tried contacting upstream and I got the rudest most vile treatment for even broaching the subject and requesting information about public discussion (their trac tickets on the matter invite public response, but they don't allow any replies through moderation)

the attached patch reverts a change just before the 2.13 release tag, it was a clean removal; so it's a clean revert, i've been using the patch for some a while and i created a ppa with the changes, https://launchpad.net/~steubens/+archive/transmission-proxy-support

i believe i've exhausted my options, my best hope is that it can be included in ubuntu for at least the natty time frame, and upstream comes to their senses by the time it's updated in ubuntu again. it is a major blocker for me and transmission is really the only usable client on ubuntu, and rightly, it's default.

See the following for the entirety of public discussion on the issue:
https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/3688
https://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/3817

related bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/transmission/+bug/713604

reverted changes:
https://trac.transmissionbt.com/changeset/11358 (gtk client)
https://trac.transmissionbt.com/changeset/11367 (libtransmission)
https://trac.transmissionbt.com/changeset/11379 (qt client)

[Krzysztof Klimonda (kklimonda)]

I'm marking this bug as a duplicate of bug #713604. The issue has been widely discussed in the upstream tracker and it is my belief that we, as a distribution, should not go against upstream wishes.

[Charles Kerr (charlesk)]

This appears to be a duplicate of #713604 and is the third duplicate you've filed for that ticket.

I understand that you disagree with the upstream development team's opinion of proxy support; nevertheless, continuing to submit duplicate tickets is IMO not productive.

===

The remainder of this comment is perhaps not germane to the ticket, but I take *strong* issue with your description of our discussion as your being given "the rudest most vile treatment" and "very very very very rude" and that you "even given the respect you think they'd give a human being" and "man you won't believe how i was treated". I spent over 90 minutes answering your (sometimes hostile) questions and accusations, and explaining upstream's opinion. In retrospect, I think the core issue is that you didn't care what the answers were because you disagreed with them.

I won't post the full 90 minutes here, but since you've claimed in several places now how badly #transmission treated you, here is a partial log that weeds out some of the side-topics.

03:15 < ohsix> i <3 transmission :[ just wish it had the proxy support back
03:16 <@jordan> ohsix: what it used to have isn't coming back. let the GNOME desktop handle the proxy support now

03:17 < ohsix> if it's not coming back i'll have to use something else
03:17 <@jordan> it's not coming back; sorry

03:22 <@jordan> ohsix: I appreciate your opinion, and that this may be your first time on the topic, but I've been through this many times and am personally sick of the topic and have zero desire to discuss it again. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse and have already said everything in that ticket
03:24 < ohsix> i find it completely fucking ludicrous that i have to use another client cuz of this, really; cuz otherwise theres no problem at all and it's just lovely, i daresay i like it
03:25 < ohsix> if the code that was removed needs to be completely redone to be considered for readdition, that's something else; and something i could even do

03:34 < ohsix> jordan: but once that works, what's stopping it from having private ui for only transmissions use? it's nearly all the support it needs already
03:35 <@jordan> we are going in circles
03:36 <@jordan> if you need built-in proxy support you should use deluge, or perhaps better, qbittorrent. it is not returning to transmission, as I said at the beginning of this conversation, about the same time I said I didn't want to be dragged into this conversation yet again

03:54 < ohsix> i'm willing to put the effort into making the proxy support in a form that is acceptable for it to return, it's the least i can offer for having it return at all
03:55 < ohsix> can you outline what you would need to see for it to return? you've already stated it will "never" return

03:59 < ohsix> now the question about private settings with ui, is there any wiggle room there?
04:00 <@jordan> I don't think so, no

04:09 < ohsix> i just want the missing part of the conversation, and what hard lines there are on having ui for private proxy settings, so i can think about what i can do about it to make the interested parties happy
04:09 <@jordan> so I am done discussing this. If you want t...

[steubens (steubens)]

more of the same, classy.

this isn't the place for this btw.

and it isn't the "third" duplicate i posted, i asked about the process for submitting it as a patch, i filed one duplicate before i even knew how hostile upstream was

[steubens (steubens)]

my trac posts are still in moderation, i haven't seen you really try to refute anything

[steubens (steubens)]

my main issue was there was no public discussion; there was a trac post that seemed to invite public discussion, then a second post that confirmed the original post-hoc, there was no public discussion and it is pretty plain that someone just decided they didn't like it and removed it, which is fine; you're well within your means and ability to do so, but i don't need a passive aggressive act, admit that there was no intention for public input instead of dismissing my input out of hand. even being, gasp; rude about it.

here's the full log for anyone wanting to join the pity party; http://lez.ath.cx/~ohsix/transmission-proxy-support.log

[Charles Kerr (charlesk)]

My mistake: second duplicate. It appears I had this ticket open in two tabs and counted it twice.

I'm not going to engage you in a further debate. I don't think we are going to find agreement on this topic. I have already tried that for 90 minutes to no avail. My only goal in this ticket is that, because I disagree with your hyperbolic description of being given given "very very very very rude" and "vile" treatment, I wanted to give readers the ability to judge for themselves.

[steubens (steubens)]

and my trac tickets? i'd hope you'd address the problem, not just the words i chose

[tkoun (tkoun)]

one thing about free software is that it is destined to the community so when feedback comes back from the community it is not only stupid to ignore it but it is against first principles as well.

now steubens comes with his approach of dealing with the stupidity of transmissionbt developer(s); it is acceptable, justifiable and it works. however it just goes around the problem. from my side I decided to switch to deluge because I believe that stupidity should be sanctioned. (I just kept my transmission 2.05 from good old maverick so that I can check from time to time how far stupidity can go...)

PS: by the way thanks steubens!
PPS: though it is easy to find a lot of stupid decisions with regards to software development, it is very hard to find THE stupidest decision... transmissionbt's removal of proxy support is one! it does not take to be a genius to see how erroneous it is and what kind of crappy arguments the developer needs to invent to back it up.