Re: [Fwd: Re: [Synaptic-devel] synaptic-0.52-17 interface]

[Sebastian Heinlein]

Am Donnerstag, den 29.07.2004, 23:31 -0400 schrieb sashko:
> on 07/29/04 06:30 Michael Vogt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 02:02:15AM -0400, sashko wrote:
> > A third option would be a new (optional) column in the package list
> > with the section. We can make it sortable and it's possible to easily
> > skip sections one is not interessted in. 
> I don't thing that will help. If the splitting by section will be done 
> according to that extra column only, then it means that at least half of 
> 15000 packages is displayed in the same window all the time for 
> <Installed> or <not installed> status. The first issue here is that 
> scrolling increment becomes too large, (I met such problems before in 
> another software) and it is difficult to jump to desired section. 
> Another point is, what if the user wants to resort that bunch of 
> packages according to name (or he can just accidentally click on a 
> column header) how long it takes to resort 7500 entries?

It instantly applies on my P3 866 - with 15000 packages! This is only
one of the possible ways to do it. As Michael already suggested I would
recommend you to select the appropriate section and then sort the list
by status.

> > I thought about a new column (optional) for the component a packages
> > is in too (component for debian is "main", "contrib", "non-free"; for
> > suse: "base", "suser-rbos", "gnome2" etc).
> perhaps someone can find such columns useful (probably even me), but 
> then you definitely should make them optional (hide/display) as well as 
> rearrangeable.

This is already the case for all columns. Michael implemented a nicer
column settings in the soon to be released version 0.53.

> > We have the "search" button in the taskbar. A search is faster now
> > than it was before.  But if you are looking for a search in the current
> > package list, this is a regression, I agree. You can search with
> > "CTRL-s", but it's really a bit hackish (opens a small box in the
> > middle of the synaptic window where you can type in your querry).
> just didn't knew about that. That should help. But isn't it the same box 
> that was on a toolbar before? The functionality is the same, isn't it? 
> So why just don't put it back where it was before?

Have you even read my answers? The search function has no equivalent in
any other environment and it does not provide enough feedback to the
user.

> >  We tried various stuff like a instant filter search but it didn't worked
> > very well. I think the gtk hackers are working on a instant search for
> > the treeview. You just start typing and the cursor jumps to the
> > package. But this is gtk2.6 stuff (if at all).
> I would prefer the cursor to jump after I click the button, just because 
> if you do a typo,  it starts to look for something which is not exactly 
> what you expected, but it takes your time anyway.

Have you ever used Rhythmbox or Epiphany? What is the difference to a
typo in the "hackish" GTK search?

> > Yeah, this is a very common complain. Personally I'm still unusre
> > about it. I wonder what information is missing and if it would be
> > feasible if we could put it in the current description window also
> > (just a thought for now). So if everybody misses the dependencies, we
> > could add them as text after the description. What information exactly
> > do you miss? Or is it just "everything" :) ?
> actually that tab was providing "Dependencies" (colored according to 
> status) "provides" and "requires". I got used to have it visible. And 
> description sometimes provides useful information (especially for the 
> packages I haven't seen before), and sometimes it is pretty long. Now if 
> you add dependencies list to the bottom of description it won't be 
> convenient to read it.

I don't think that it is a good idea to put the dependencies at the
bottom, too.


> > But I very much agree with the idea of having two
> > orthogonal means to organize the packages. I think this works pretty
> > well most of the time with the sortable columns. But we may need to
> > add more (optional) columns for it. What do you think?
> Do you mean to add an extra column for every possible type of status?
> <new in archive> <upgradable><installed><not installed><queued> etc...
> If you add them to the end of column list some users will never discover 
> them. They are just too lazy to bother horizontal scrollbar. In fact, it 
> really such configuration isn't  too convenient. In the case you add 
> them as a very left columns then the rest of useful information will be 
> shifted to the right which is also not the best case.

See above. It is already possible to rearrange the columns. I think that
Michael referred to the addition of "section" and "component" columns.

> >>2) To keep those tabs means present very useful information about every 
> >>package in convenient, easily-accessible way. Personally I always want 
> >>to see:
> >>- description: just for case if i never saw that package before

I agree that is the most important one.

> >>- dependencies, if half of them are in red, probably I won't try install 
> >>that package (now I have to wait until synaptix resolve all the 
> >>dependencies for me)

I base my choice about installing a package on the fact if I need/want
it or not. The dependency handling should be ideally done by the
software and should be of no issue to the user.

Which OS are you using? The dialog "required packages" popups instantly
on my old Debian machine (compared to yours).

> >>- expert (that is how you call it in 0.48) - that is the third most 
> >>important thing

Because you want to do your stuff in a complicated way (referring to you
slow repository issue).

> just wandering, you still have tabs in "Properties" window. What if just 
> make those tabs to appear as additional tabs in the description window 
> or to make that properties window itself to be a dock-window instead of 
>   free-floating one.

I already pointed you to the patch of Michael. Don't post questions a
second time since our resources are limited.

Regards,

Sebastian