FS#17523 - package name is truncated, should shorten the percentage bar instead
Attached to Project:
Pacman
Opened by Gary James (gazj) - Tuesday, 15 December 2009, 21:01 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Saturday, 03 July 2010, 09:51 GMT
Opened by Gary James (gazj) - Tuesday, 15 December 2009, 21:01 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Saturday, 03 July 2010, 09:51 GMT
|
Details
Summary and Info:
When using a terminal full screen, the package name is truncated during download, the percentage bar should be shortened to make more room for the package name. Steps to Reproduce: Pacman -Syu libmsn-4.0beta8-2-i686 357.9K 92.8K/s 00:00:04 [##################################################################] 100% xf86-input-evdev-2.... 24.8K 97.3K/s 00:00:00 [##################################################################] 100% xorg-server-1.7.3.9... 3.8M 117.6K/s 00:00:33 [##################################################################] 100% |
This task depends upon
Closed by Allan McRae (Allan)
Saturday, 03 July 2010, 09:51 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: git commit e4be3e06
Saturday, 03 July 2010, 09:51 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: git commit e4be3e06
I am wondering, maybe it looks nicer this way to have the same width for both, so that everything is aligned ?
The problem, as you can see in the output below, is that we put much more stuff in the download text. The text part of upgrade line is only half filled. But the text part of download is completely filled *and* the filename is cut. This is clearly not ideal. I am interested in improving that, but not sure what decision to take, and how to compute the text width in both cases.
And clearly, when the terminal is wider, it makes more sense to increase the text width rather than just progressbar length.
What about using 50% of terminal width, but imposing a minimum of 50 and maximum of 80 or something ?
:: Retrieving packages from extra...
cpufrequtils-006-4-... 43.8K 109.6K/s 00:00:00 [####################################################################################] 100%
checking package integrity...
(1/1) checking for file conflicts [####################################################################################] 100%
(1/1) upgrading cpufrequtils [####################################################################################] 100%
This problem has become more apparent now that package filenames now contain -i686- you very often cannot see the version number of the package being downloaded.
That is what I had in mind at least, your views?