Re: packages.d.o: gcc package search is resulting in "Your keyword was too generic"

Michael Kesper <[email protected]> Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:35:12 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.www
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hi Carsten,

On 13.06.19 16:20, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> Hello Michael,
> 
> Am 13.06.19 um 15:47 schrieb Michael Kesper:
>>> This list is about the Debian websites and the maintenance of them, so> unfortunately you are on the wrong list for asking such questions.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's the only address given visibly on the packages.d.o site:
>> To report a problem with the web site, please e-mail our publicly archived mailing
>>  list [email protected] in English. For other contact information,
>>  see the Debian contact page. Web site source code is available.
>>
>> So our site pointed Phil right here (I think we cannot expect people
>> to go back to a general contact page if they have a problem with a
>> specific site).
> 
> I disagree a bit here.
> The user should be able to distinguish between core issues about
> functionality and features of the websites and technical questions about
> packages.

But maybe a FAQ or something about packages.d.o. could be shown on
packages.d.o. website
"I don't get any results" ...
 
> For me the main thing in the post was to find possible backported
> versions of gcc. Not the search was misbehaving. And mostly people
> aren't reading the search output well enough (I count me in here too ...
> sometimes). 

But doesn't that strengthen the point the messages need improvement?

> Even here by the example of Phil there is also a link
> presented which is lowering the search parameter and pointing to
> 
>   https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=gcc
> 
> This site will show you all matching packages. If you can't find your
> package in the suite you are looking for it's really likely it doesn't
> exist there.

Hmm, this seems to use a "limit 100" which is understandable but could
lead to exactly NOT providing what I searched for.

 
>>> But there are no backports of the gcc versions available! So the output
>>> of the search is mostly correct.

I think packages.d.o. could be a little bit smarter here.
We _know_ for a fact that stretch-backports is a "backport" of a "distribution version".
So if we don't find it there, point to another distribution version?
I did not look at the code yet (there's also no pointer on that site where we can
find that).

Best wishes
Michael

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 659 B)