Bug 481020

Summary:	Turn off individual sources/backends
Product:	[Applications] Discover	Reporter:	matterhorn103
Component:	discover	Assignee:	Plasma Bugs List <plasma-bugs-null>
Status:	RESOLVED INTENTIONAL
Severity:	wishlist	CC:	aleixpol, nate
Priority:	NOR
Version First Reported In:	5.27.10
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	openSUSE
OS:	Linux
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed/Implemented In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description matterhorn103 2024-02-07 17:18:34 UTC

SUMMARY

I love Discover. But I personally love using it as a GUI for Flatpak management, and for browsing Flathub – not for my system package management, which I do exclusively on the CLI. Discover doesn't seem to like this use case all that much.

As far as I can tell, there is no way in Discover to change whether Discover sees/is responsible for handling Flatpaks, or firmware, or system packages (via PackageKit). Under settings, the user can select and deselect repos, but this adds/removes them system-wide, not just for Discover.

It would be extremely useful if the user could set Discover to display, search for, and update only Flatpaks, for example, or exclude firmware. Presumably the effect could be achieved by uninstalling the relevant PackageKit backend, but it shouldn't be necessary for the user to do this.

Please can there be two toggles under settings for each source – one for adding/removing the source entirely, and one for enabling/disabling the source within Discover?

SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS
Linux/KDE Plasma: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20240202
(available in About System)
KDE Plasma Version: 5.27.10
KDE Frameworks Version: 5.114.0
Qt Version: 5.15.12

Comment 1 Nate Graham 2024-02-15 03:49:34 UTC

The way you can do this is by uninstalling the PackageKit backend. Can you see if that meets your needs?

Comment 2 matterhorn103 2024-02-19 20:36:59 UTC

(In reply to Nate Graham from comment #1)
> The way you can do this is by uninstalling the PackageKit backend. Can you
> see if that meets your needs?

It does meet my personal needs. But a toggle in the GUI would be more user-friendly, more elegant, and more discoverable, no pun intended :)

Comment 3 Nate Graham 2024-02-20 22:17:16 UTC

I can understand that, but given there's an existing supported way to do what you want, and that it's a somewhat unusual thing to want to do in the first place, I think we're gonna have to hope it's good enough! Thanks anyway for the idea though.

Comment 4 matterhorn103 2024-02-22 10:06:15 UTC

Ok, I didn't think it was that unusual it is to want to do it, but perhaps I underestimated it! Certainly the normal case is people either want to update via GUI *or* CLI, not a mix of both.

Hopefully this thread serves as documentation that people wanting the same thing can find, and maybe more people will show interest in future.

Thanks for responding, I love the work you guys do and read your blog every week :)

Comment 5 Nate Graham 2024-02-22 14:56:45 UTC

You're very welcome! :)