Software Sources shows codenames not version numbers

Bug #887079 reported by Alan Pope 🍺🐧🐱 πŸ¦„ on 2011-11-07
40
This bug affects 7 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
software-properties (Ubuntu)
Low
Unassigned

Bug Description

In the updates tab software-properties shows codenames such as 'oneiric-updates' and 'oneiric-proposed'. As I understand it we shouldn't really show the codename to the user. It also seems somewhat redundant, it's not like that screen would ever have anything other than $current_release-* in it. I can see why the 3rd party sources might display codenames as users may (for whatever reason) want to add the source for an older (or newer) release on a 3rd party site to get an app.

See screenshot.

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.10
Package: software-properties-gtk 0.81.10
Uname: Linux 3.1.0-999-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 1.23-0ubuntu3
Architecture: amd64
Date: Mon Nov 7 11:20:31 2011
PackageArchitecture: all
ProcEnviron:
 PATH=(custom, user)
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: software-properties
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

Dmitry Shachnev (mitya57) wrote :

Code names are actually part of repositories URLs, and I don't know any reason to use version numbers instead (changing thing if such a level would require a lot of infrastructure changes).

Changed in software-properties (Ubuntu):
status: New → Opinion

I am not saying we should change the repository URLs, but just that we shouldn't display the codename in the GUI.

The code name is held in a text file within the software properties application source, it's not derived from the repository URL.

I don't see any complicated reason why software properties cannot just display "proposed" rather than "oneiric-proposed".

haydoni (andyhayden1) wrote :

@Dmitry "Being part of the repository URL" is no reason to display it within the software sources GUI, else the entire URL should be displayed.

No additional value is given to "Important security updates" by the addition of "(oneric-security)", it's completely redundant.

Anthony Hook (anthonyhook) wrote :

I agree with Alan and haydoni on this one, the terms, and I am in understanding that we try to refer to them as 'yy.mm' for normal users after release, (unless working with repos, pre-release versions, etc), and this should remain consistent in software-properties as well.

Changed in software-properties (Ubuntu):
status: Opinion → Triaged
Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) wrote :

The current specification is at <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareUpdates#settings>. I agree that it should be changed to not include codenames. However, we should take care not to cause regressions we don't understand.

The screenshot at <http://www.danielandrade.net/2007/11/10/10-things-to-do-just-after-installing-ubuntu-710/> shows that in Ubuntu 7.10, codenames were not shown. So can anyone identify why they were introduced, or at least when?

Changed in software-properties (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)
status: Triaged → Confirmed
Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) wrote :

Actually, I was confused. That's the "Ubuntu Software" tab that doesn't have codenames, not the "Updates" tab.

Robert Roth (evfool) wrote :

@mpt: Should then the codenames from the Updates tab removed, and we would have only updates/backports/security/proposed?
---
Ubuntu Bug Squad volunteer triager
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad

Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) wrote :

Yes, I think removing those codenames would be an improvement. (Sorry for taking so long to get back to this.)

Changed in software-properties (Ubuntu):
assignee: Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) → nobody
status: Confirmed → Triaged
Changed in software-properties (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Low
Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) wrote :

I have updated the design specification <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareUpdates#settings> so that the checkboxes are replaced by a menu with options for "All updates", "Security and recommended updates", "Security updates only", and (if your current config is anything else) "Custom". Though the main purpose of this redesign is to make silly combinations less likely (e.g. having -backports on but -security off), it also avoids mentioning either the codename *or* the version number.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers