If you’re trying to build it all from scratch, sure, but you specifically mentioned docker and there’s plenty of high-quality docker images you can use - and it’s no harder to use a qBittorrent docker image than a transmission docker image.
Here’s the docker command for transmission:
docker run -d \
--name=transmission \
-e PUID=1000 \
-e PGID=1000 \
-e TZ=Etc/UTC \
-e TRANSMISSION_WEB_HOME= `#optional` \
-e USER= `#optional` \
-e PASS= `#optional` \
-e WHITELIST= `#optional` \
-e PEERPORT= `#optional` \
-e HOST_WHITELIST= `#optional` \
-p 9091:9091 \
-p 51413:51413 \
-p 51413:51413/udp \
-v /path/to/data:/config \
-v /path/to/downloads:/downloads \
-v /path/to/watch/folder:/watch \
--restart unless-stopped \
lscr.io/linuxserver/transmission:latest
and the equivelant for qBitTorrent:
docker run -d \
--name=qbittorrent \
-e PUID=1000 \
-e PGID=1000 \
-e TZ=Etc/UTC \
-e WEBUI_PORT=8080 \
-p 8080:8080 \
-p 6881:6881 \
-p 6881:6881/udp \
-v /path/to/appdata/config:/config \
-v /path/to/downloads:/downloads \
--restart unless-stopped \
lscr.io/linuxserver/qbittorrent:latest
I’m not even going to argue that the qBitTorrent docker image is technically easier as it has less to configure, it’s all one command at the end of the day.
I don’t want to argue about that, I personally avoid Docker if I can, but can’t deny it’s a great tool and very powerful for the right use cases.
What I wonder is: to you, in your opinion, those commands are really easier than “apt install transmission”?
If you read up through the thread, the person I responded to specifically said about transmission being the easiest to run via docker.
