This would make zsh/bash terminal rsync backups of Scrivener projects to external or network drives a lot faster, and it would make cloud syncing projects a lot more reliable/stable/safe. On big Scrivener projects, rsync can be painfully slow. I also believe the PC version of Scrivener already saves projects like this. I just want the option to natively save projects thusly in Mac OS. (Anyone can already break out the package contents manually, but I want to be able to load/save natively.)
The “package” is just an illusion in the Finder, on disc it’s exactly the folder structure you describe.
Command line tools like rsync usually don’t care, not even Apple’s own. (You can just cd in an ls, etc.)
I have no idea why rsync struggles with it. Is it possible that it somehow picks up huge (zipped) backups? Although those should be in a different location, outside the project folder (“package”). 
7 Likes
I move things about regularly over rsync+ssh and to my ubuntu server, I never saw any issue with .scriv folders. I just tested a 104MB scriv project folder directly and
rsync -avh --progress --delete "Papers & Grants/NSFC 2024.scriv" cog5z:/home/cog5/Documents
Overall throughput via my encrypted ssh (I run ssh over a Zerotier overlay network) for a 103.51Mb scriv project was 15.93Mbytes/sec – that’s just a bit faster than using SMB overall. Obviously subsequent syncs will be much faster…
One recommendation: don’t use the ancient rsync version 2.6.9 (released in 2006!!!) bundled by macOS – use homebrew or pixi to install and keep updated the latest version. The -v and --progress flag will tell you what if anything is getting stuck…
4 Likes
If you really want to see your Scrivener projects as folders, just uninstall Scrivener! That’s the only thing making the GUI act the way it is, pretending it is a file, so once you remove the software it appears the way it really is.
You don’t have to do that to increase performance though! All of the above is absolutely correct. You should troubleshoot from the standpoint that this is a normal folder in all respects that matter to shell level tools (and in most other ways as well, the user interactions that change with “packages” are in the grand scheme of things, extremely narrow).
Maybe look for unexpected large files in the project, in conjunction with the slower rsync byte level flags.
2 Likes
That’s a drastic measure compared to right-click & “Show Package Contents” 
1 Like
LOL! “I work for the publisher of the software and I recommend you just uninstall it if you’re so dumb and it’s so difficult for you to use!!!” 
(BTW, my favorite reply to feature requests from developers has always been the indignant, “Why would anyone ever even want to do that?” It’s never the curious, “Tell me more about why you are making such an unusual request.” Once again, I feel compelled to add: LOL! But I’ve gotten all the answer I need here. I mean, just look at how long I’ve been using Scrivener and been a member of this forum.)
(P.P.S. Thanks to nontroppo for the brew reminder. That one actually made me do the open-palm forehead slap! So seriously, thanks nontroppo. That was some great advice. I need to script a standard updater for all my Mac machines. Meanwhile: maybe one day the publisher of Scrivener will come up with a more non-hackey way to use commercial cloud based storage with their software, or come up with a more robust “file” format (knowing the “file” here is actually a pile of nested directories filled with files. 
))
You started this thread to request the polar opposite, turning Scrivener’s “package” into a bunch of folders (which is already the case). It’s literally in the title: “Save Scrivener packages in Mac OS as simple folder structures, not packages”
What the hell, man…
2 Likes
As noted, the Mac and PC (and iOS) project formats are exactly the same. The only difference is that Mac OS hides the internal structure from the user.
If rsync can’t handle a very standard Mac OS construct – that incidentally is correctly handled by services like iCloud and Dropbox – that sounds like an rsync issue, not a Scrivener issue.
3 Likes
Rsync doesn’t even care. I tried the preinstalled version locally (ancient indeed, scary!) and it handled my Scrivener “package” gracefully. I doubt that it even knew it handled a package. Either there’s something else going on with that project in question, or at least something that this old version can’t deal with. In general? No issue. And certainly no Scrivener issue.
4 Likes
I cannot even begin to understand how you got all the way from what I suggested you try, as an experiment to test performance, or to check for large files against slow-down flags, to that!
To make sure it is clear, since your interpretation of some things to try was taken as an indignant, “why would you ever want that”: Scrivener already uses a folder and file format. That was the point of trying the uninstall/reinstall experiment, to remove any UI level stuff obscuring that, so you could try the tool without them in the way (not that they ever should be, but that’s what an experiment is for).
Anyway, good luck, I guess! 
4 Likes
There is “Show Package Contents” right mouse click context menu item in Finder. The package will open as a regular folder. It’s the most system-native way to store documents in macOS for years, it was not invented by Scrivener developers. And it is actually very convenient. You may also want to try Chronosync app or FreeFileSync app if you experience issues with rsync.
2 Likes