| Summary: | Please Include Package Names in Package Details | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Applications] Discover | Reporter: | Lonnie <kde> |
| Component: | discover | Assignee: | Dan Leinir Turthra Jensen <leinir> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | aleixpol, nate, null |
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version First Reported In: | 5.18.5 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Other | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
I remember back in Ubunut 7.04, the software installer GUI always indicated the package name. Somewhere along the way that got dropped from most software installer GUIs. I wish someone would bring that back! Distributions will often change the name of the packages, so I'm afraid this would add further confusion. I don't see package names as of today all that useful outside of the distro context. How could Discover possibly install any application without knowing the package name? Obviously, it must "discover" the package name before it can assist in installing the package. I'm requesting that the package name be shown to the user before it is installed, so that the user can take note of it. I'd like the ability to copy and paste that package name into my "sudo apt install" list (that I keep up to date for the purposes of quickly installing all my packages in the event I reinstall the OS). The reason I don't use Discover, at the moment, if because that at no time in the installation process does it reveal this fundamentally pertinent piece of information to the user! I've been requesting this for years and I can't understand why I get so much frustrating resistance for this simple and reasonable request! When I began using Linux exclusively, back in April of 2007, the GUI Software Manager in Ubuntu 7.04 always included this information. At some point along the way, however, some nitwit decided to remove package names for the so called "details". In my opinion, if you don't list the package name, those aren't details. Because to me, package name is the most pertinent detail I want to know. Exclude other stuff, but don't exclude the package name. All I care about is the package name and the source of the package. That's it. @Aleix Pol In order to install a package, doesn't Discover have to know the name of that package? Of course it does, which makes what you've said about "different distro's having different names for packages" totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that, whatever the disrto names a package, Discover must know the ultimate package name in order to install the package! The package name is the most pertinent piece of information involved in the whole process. If Discover can install a package, it can certainly reveal the package's name to the user prior to installing it. I'm astonished by difficulty I'm had promoting this simple and practical request. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 403492 *** |
Discover does not include a software package's name in the details section of each software it catalogs and I want this to be added for the following reasons. When submitting bug reports and feature requests, it is necessary to know the package name. When I use Discover to install a piece of software, I expect to be able to go back to Discover to "discover" that software's package name. Since it doesn't include this pertinent detail, I'm having to use a number of command to "discover" a packages name. Although I use Discover to discover available software, I always like to collect that software's package name, so I can add to my "sudo apt install" list, so that when I set up my computer from scratch, I can use one command to reinstall all the software packages I've installed previously. These are my two reason, but I'm sure others have more. The bottom line is, the package name is a very pertinent piece of information that Discover should include in the details section of each software it catalogs. Look at what is in the details section right now: https://i.imgur.com/wRByCke.png I'm interesting in two things: (1) Source (which is shown) and (2) Package Name (not shown). Please add this.