Official Package-Names Not Shown in Gnome-Software

[Lonnie Lee Best]

The names of a packages (as you would type them when installing via a command prompt) are not indicated in gnome-software.

Even when I use gnome-software to locate a package, I still want to know the package's official Ubuntu name, because I usually want to add that package-name to an command install list (sudo apt-get install package1 package2 package3), so that I can install all my packages at once the next time I do a fresh install.

That fact that gnome-software can locate packages for me is great. The fact that it doesn't reveal the official name of the packages is lacking (for me).

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 16.04
Package: gnome-software 3.20.1~git20160331.78d1aab-0ubuntu2
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 4.4.0-17.33-generic 4.4.6
Uname: Linux 4.4.0-17-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.20.1-0ubuntu1
Architecture: amd64
CurrentDesktop: Unity
Date: Fri Apr 8 12:18:43 2016
InstallationDate: Installed on 2016-03-14 (25 days ago)
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 16.04 LTS "Xenial Xerus" - Alpha amd64 (20160307)
SourcePackage: gnome-software
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

The package name is a technical detail which holds no interesting information at all for the non-technically experienced user who just wants to install an application.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this will ever be shown in GNOME Software, and honestly, I don't see any reason - even for a technically experienced user - why the package name should be shown there. Finding out the package name for someone who can use the command line is a matter of seconds anyway.
For the "normal" user even explaining the abstract concept of what a "package" is is a challenge, let alone it being useful when they have an UI like GNOME Software.
Can you explain why you need this? (Maybe there is an actual bug or usecase hidden which we should address)

[Lonnie Lee Best (launchpad-startport)]

1) Previous software managers, in Ubuntu, indicated the package-name upon viewing the details of software, and therefore it has become my go-to-GUI for discovering package-names.

2) Even when I use a GUI to install software, I like to take note of the official package name so that I can add that package-name to my notes, and so that I can later install *all my software* (on a fresh install) with one "sudo apt-get install" command (without having to relocate each software again via a Software Manager: gnome-software).

3) When I have an issue with a program, I report bugs using this command:
ubuntu-bug packageName
I like having a GUI for discovering the package name: If I installed it using the GUI, that's where I want to go back to in order to see the package name I installed via that GUI. I don't want to memorize a command for discovering which package I initially used gnome-software to install; the GUI that I searched from (originally -- when I installed the software) is the same GUI I want to search to discover what I originally installed.

4) The official package name is pertinent information to advance users (who may know commands, but prefer GUIs).

5) Including the package name doesn't take up much room; it does not clutter the interface for users who don't care about package names, while also providing pertinent information to advance user.

[Martin Jelen (martyj)]

100 % Agreed with Lonnie Lee Best.

My opinion is every user should known what package is going to install. It is our right.

And there is no reason to hide that information. It is ONE line, ONE name. Nothing more, nothing less.

@ Lonnie Lee Best

Better use [b]Aptik[/b] for your SW reinstall.

[Lonnie Lee Best (launchpad-startport)]

Use Case:

Today, I discovered "auovia" in gnome-software:
http://neartalk.com/ss/2016-05-16_002_1200x1011.png

Before installing it, I'd like to take note of its package name. Since gnome-software doesn't provide that information, I attempted to find it myself:

user@pc:~$ sudo apt-get install audovia
[sudo] password for user:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package audovia
user@pc:~$ apt-cache search audovia
user@pc:~$ apt-cache search "audovia"

As you can see, none of these efforts returned the package-name. I shouldn't have to do a google search to discover what package gnome-software will be installing onto my computer when I click the "Install" button. This information should be in the "Details" sections shown here:
http://neartalk.com/ss/2016-05-16_002_1200x1011.png

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

That still doesn't include information on why you need to know the package name at all...
In any case, most stuff in the AppStream cache can be queried via `appstreamcli search audovia` (and it shows the package name on the CLI).
If you really think this is necessary, I suggest you to take this upstream (report a bug at GNOME and link it here). If it gets accepted, we will have the change downstream soon.

[Lonnie Lee Best (launchpad-startport)]

The fact that I (and others) want to know the package-name is reason enough, but I already gave other good reasons in post 4:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-software/+bug/1568056/comments/4

Post 6 was to emphasize how difficult it can be to find the package name and to emphasize the convenience gained from "simply providing that information in the details section" here:
http://neartalk.com/ss/2016-05-16_002_1200x1011.png

I will take you suggestion of posting this upstream as well.

[horizon brave (horizonbrave)]

I agree with the above comments that the package name should be shown in the details and it's just one word string that won't affect the simplicity of gnome-software UI. Did anyone reported this bug upstream (Gnome)? Cheers

[Lonnie Lee Best (launchpad-startport)]

I do recall posting upstream at some point, but those damn idiots at GNOME rarely grant any suggestion. I'm done with GNOME!

[Victor Porton (porton)]

It can be called "System package ID", not to confuse a non-technical user.