Description of problem: I am trying to run "kompare" (the KDE compare/diff GUI) but pk-command-not-found suggests I should run "compare" instead. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): PackageKit-0.5.5-1.fc12@x86_64 How reproducible: with similar names, every time. ie. kompare vs compare htop vs top Steps to Reproduce: 1. open a shell and have PackageKit-command-not-found installed 2. run a "similar" but uninstalled known command to something installed (ie.. htop) Actual results: Command not found. Similar command is: 'top' Expected results: asking me to install htop.
This bug has been triaged Steven M. Parrish KDE & Packagekit Triager Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
(In reply to comment #0) > 1. open a shell and have PackageKit-command-not-found installed > 2. run a "similar" but uninstalled known command to something installed (ie.. > htop) Isn't that what it's meant to do? Can't you edit /etc/PackageKit/CommandNotFound.conf and make it how you like it?
ahh.. didn't notice that config file there.. However it doesn't really resolve the issue. If I set the configuration option SingleMatch to ignore instead of warn it simple states "command not found" and doesn't offer "htop" as a possible package (or kdesdk for kompare). If I set SingleMatch to ask it asks "do you want to run top?". This is really a "complex" issue unfortunately.. As which should take precedence.. the available packages in the repository OR the typo? Right now the typo is taking precedence, and there doesn't seem to be a way to change that. Switching the precedence will resolve the issue for me, but will it cause new issues of "I really did typo and I don't want to install a command I've never heard of before. Can you REALLY tell me what the possible matches of installed packages are?" Possibly options to resolve this may be 1) a new preference should be added to change the precedence of scanning 2) have a preference to show BOTH new packages and typo resolutions. (either way this probably needs to be filed upstream)
(In reply to comment #3) > (either way this probably needs to be filed upstream) Agreed, with a patch please :-)