Comment 3 for bug 1395088

Alleging "you want to break roaming behavior" is unlikely to help solve whatever the problem is. Unfortunately -- as often happens when the word "should" appears in a bug summary -- the exact problem was left unstated. Is it:

(A) That "APs with same SSID and support for the same encryption" are not treated by Network Manager as a single network with a shared password etc? If so, the information here doesn't substantiate the bug: your two APs have the same name but support *different* encryption options, unlike (for example) the set of identical APs you would find at a hotel or conference center. And even if the bug is valid, merely merging the entries in indicator-network probably would not solve the problem; it would need fixing in Network Manager.

(B) Merely that the list in indicator-network is not "in sync" with the list in nm-applet, and the inconsistency is irritating? That would be more likely to be solved by finally shipping indicator-network on PCs than by changing indicator-network to match nm-applet. For example, maybe the evil-twin attack is intractable, but if it is tractable, defending against it will almost certainly mean listing networks even more differently from how they're listed in nm-applet.

(C) "Roaming behavior", that having set Network Manager to connect to both APs automatically, it fails to connect to one after going out of range of the other? If so, that again is a Network Manager bug which probably would not be fixed by UI changes in indicator-network. Maybe the bug would happen even if the APs had different names; have you tried that?

(D) That on your way to the basement or the second floor, you are "not knowing which one is the basement or the second floor AP" and so can't choose which one to connect to? That seems least likely to me, because merging the entries into one would prevent you from choosing one over the other at all.