Bug#172197: www.debian.org: it would be nice to have search_packages output showing the section of each package
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 10:56:20AM +0100, David Andel wrote:
> > Package: www.debian.org
> > Version: N/A; reported 2002-12-08
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > when searching for packages with "any" as section entry it would be very
> > helpful to see the section to which each package belongs right on the
> > main search output page. Otherwise one has to either search multiple
> > times with the different section entries or to click on each package
> > separately for checking the section.
> > It would be even better to include all sections right away, like
> > "admin", "web", etc.
>
> Erm, they already are. That search engine doesn't discriminate in that
> regard.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. I often find myself searching for a package with something in the description, but I know for sure that I'm not interested in any games. So it'd be cool to have the opportunity to skip those. Either by a possibility to narrow down the search (by new entries in "section", now in the second meaning below) or at least by indicating both "section" meanings in the list of packages produced by the search. Otherwise I often find myself klicking through dozens of packages I am not interested in, just because their descriptions contained my word. By being able to enable/disable selectively (main|contrib|non-free|non-us) AND (admin|base|net|mail|...) this could be avoided. I mean, now it's only possible to narrow the search down to ONE section out of (main|contrib|non-free|non-us). The simpler solution would be to leave the search as is, but to add both meanings of "section" in the search output page. Then one could skip the uninteresting packages right
away.
>
> > A cool thing would be also to add those sections to the "section" entry
> > to make possible searching just in admin or leave out games.
>
> Note that "section" can mean (main|contrib|non-free) and also
> (admin|base|net|mail|...), so there's a wording issue there. :)
David
Reply to: