[Bug 655998] Re: Update Manager listing should show package names, not just descriptions

[Mikkel Kirkgaard Nielsen]

As a user experiencing this issue as a daily nuisance and after seeing
the mentioned "summary_before_name" gconf parameter having no effect I
went digging in the source code to check if any of its logic was still
present. First conclusion; the value of gconf parameter summary-before-
name (dash, not underscore) is still read and set to a local variable
but never used for anything in the program logic.

However, by studying the changelog (file:debian/changelog) I realized
that the current state of the package listing is an implementation of
the design specification called "SoftwareUpdates".

update-manager (1:0.178) raring; urgency=low

  * Implement the "available updates" details pane from the SoftwareUpdates
    spec.  Specifically, this adds grouping of related updates, adds an
    "Ubuntu base" group for core packages, and shows only the description
    summary in the main view.
  * Show a restart icon next to packages that declare they will need a
    system restart via XB-Restart-Required: system

 -- Michael Terry <mterry at ubuntu.com>  Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:20:22 -0500

Detailed in section "Expanded presentation of updates"
(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareUpdates#Expanded_presentation_of_updates)
is that the "title" of a package should be shown to the user. The
"title" being defined in the "SoftwarePackageOperations" specification
(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwarePackageOperations#title) as the package
synopsis, unless package supplies a user visible application and
.desktop file, then the "nice looking" application name is the title.

This change was implemented in r2582 of update-manager:

$ bzr log -r 2582
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 2582 [merge]
committer: Michael Terry <michael.terry at canonical.com>
branch nick: trunk
timestamp: Thu 2013-01-24 13:03:42 -0500
message:
  Merge available updates pane changes to group packages and show the description, not the package name
------------------------------------------------------------

So despite the long standing silence from maintainers it is indeed a
conscious design choice to show a wobbly word soup instead of the
package name, it is not a regression or a bug.

For the curious, the previous use of the summary-before-name gconf
parameter was to decide whether the primary identifier in the then more
elaborate listing (something like
https://www.howtoforge.com/images/upgrade_ubuntu_9.10_to_10.04/2.jpg)
was to be the summary or package name (it was probably a change in
default from name to summary prompting the report of this bug).

$ bzr log -r 2582 -p|grep summary_ -A3
-                if self.summary_before_name:
-                    contents = "%s\n<small>%s</small>" % (summary, name)
-                else:
-                    contents = "<b>%s</b>\n<small>%s</small>" % (name, summary)

So the question is now where to turn to improve the situation? If the
design decision is non-changeable would maintainers maybe accept/devise
a patch adding a configuration parameter that toggles whether to show
package name or summary?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to update-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/655998

Title:
  Update Manager listing should show package names, not just
  descriptions

Status in update-manager package in Ubuntu:
  Confirmed

Bug description:
  Binary package hint: update-manager

  The use of package descriptions (instead of package names) in the
  Update Manager package listings represents a significant and needless
  reduction in usability.

  There is no scenario in which a description of a package to be
  upgraded works better than the package name itself, followed by the
  description on the SECOND line, in smaller text.

  As a seasoned programmer who has been creating GUIs since 1993, I'd
  like to offer the following reasons why using a longer description not
  only represents a reduction in usability but also reduces Package
  Manager's effectiveness as a security and management tool:

  1) The headers are no longer bolded, which makes the heading more
  difficult to distinguish from the second line;

  2) Longer list items require the eye move from left to right (or right
  to left in some languages), which makes it far more difficult for the
  eye to scan vertically;

  3) NOBODY uses these package descriptions, making them even less
  recognisable than the (admittedly opaque) package names;

  3a) Even if their use were to become common practice, the use of
  opaque, longer descriptions instead of opaque-but-terse package names
  is STILL not an improvement;

  4) Developers don't make any effort to write succinct, useful
  descriptions (can you guess which package is the 'transaction based
  package management service'? I didn't think so);

  5) Package names, although difficult for non-technical users to
  decipher, follow long-established naming conventions, and can
  immediately be parsed by advanced and intermediate users - the very
  people to whom this information is useful;

  6) Package names are shorter (short is Good in lists);

  7) There is no explanation or description that can be made in this
  limited space (save perhaps for a link to a wikipedia page) that could
  conceivably be of any use whatsoever to beginner users. Packages and
  their importance to the system are never going to more than vaguely
  understood by beginners. Reducing the usability of an important
  security tool for advanced and intermediate users is therefore a
  misguided and ultimately unrewarding step.

  7a) The descriptions themselves are just more verbose version of the
  package name (e.g. 'tools for generating an initramfs' for 'initramfs-
  tools') - they add NO NEW information;

  To sum up: This change in the displayed values in Package Manager's
  listings adds nothing to usability for beginner users (to whom the
  listing is meaningless in any case) and make it more difficult to use
  for everyone else.

  Lest someone suggest this is unimportant: THIS IS A SERIOUS BUG.
  People judge whether and when to update their systems based on this
  listing. It MUST be as clear, succinct and useful as possible.

  Expert knowledge of the system and its components is a prerequisite
  for using this tool, no matter how dumbed down the interface gets.
  Presenting the wrong information in the listing only makes it harder
  for those of us who depend on this functionality to do our jobs.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/655998/+subscriptions