Hi Nicholas,
On 5/23/21 5:21 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 10:51, David Bremner <da...@tethera.net
<mailto:da...@tethera.net>> wrote:
>
> Salman Mohammadi <sal...@smoha.org <mailto:sal...@smoha.org>> writes:
>
> > the command `apt-utils-search` does not sort the numbers based on
integer value
> > from smallest to largest.
> >
> > How to reproduce:
> > -----------------
> > 1. M-x apt-utils-search
> > 2. Search packages for regexp: google-android-platform
>
> Since the function does not promise any particular order, and the order
> matches "apt search" on the command line, this seems more like a request
> for an enhancement. I guess sorting by version might be possible,
> although not trivial due to versions being complicated. Sorting by some
> number embedded in the package name sounds messy.
Salman, are you asking for a natural short, like piping a newline
separated list to "sort -V" would provide? I think this is what
you're asking for.
David, AFAIK Emacs doesn't yet provide a natural sort algorithm, but
is there any reason why it wouldn't be a good idea to pass the data to
"sort -V" before outputting to the *APT package info* buffer? I guess
there's also the question of if a non-interactive call to
apt-utils-search should return a natural sorted list...
But isn't the big question: If a user-friendly natural sorted list is
a reasonable expectation, shouldn't "apt (and aptitude) search" do
this directly? Better to fix it there, rather than in a way specific
to debian-el, no?
Cheers,
Nicholas
I didn't mean exactly something like "sort -V" but an order in which
something-here-24 does not fall behind something-here-3. My mistake was
that I hadn't checked `apt search` for this behavior before filing a bug
here. Apt gives the same order.
Here is the related bug, https://bugs.debian.org/681164 and already
labeled as 'wontfix'.
Thanks, Salman
