Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!

FS#30773 - {archweb} package search: put exact match at the top

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Florian Pritz (bluewind) - Friday, 20 July 2012, 19:59 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Monday, 20 October 2014, 14:56 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Web Sites
Status Closed
Assigned To Dan McGee (toofishes)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 3
Private No


It's hard to find the perl package here[1] since it's hidden between all other kinds of perl stuff. This would be way easier if exact matches (perl in this case) were at the top of the first page.

I know about ?name=perl, but I think this would still be a good (maybe better) solution since it doesn't require the user to specify if an exact match is wanted or not.

This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Monday, 20 October 2014, 14:56 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  Don't re-open, please, when this has an implemented fix listed in the comments. Open a new bug report if there are real problems.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 12:39 GMT
Comment by Jelle van der Waa (jelly) - Sunday, 01 June 2014, 14:01 GMT
This adds an exact match option to search. It only moves the "search" button to the next line more often on smaller width resolutions.
Comment by gsc (xgdgsc) - Friday, 05 September 2014, 11:58 GMT
hope it gets fixed soon.
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Sunday, 19 October 2014, 00:24 GMT

Florian, didn't ignore your work, thanks for the inspiration there. Just ran into some problems when testing it out- pagination and loading the full queryset into memory, which isn't ideal for a search like 'perl', 'python', etc. Decided it would be easier to simply add a second table to the page for exact match results.
Comment by Karol Błażewicz (karol) - Monday, 20 October 2014, 14:22 GMT
  • Field changed: Percent Complete (100% → 0%)
What if there's only one match e.g. - does it have to be listed twice? Awfully confusing.
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Monday, 20 October 2014, 14:55 GMT
Really? I think we're seeing a mountain here where we have a molehill.