I mean deducing the package from download size is way harder than just seeing the name in the open.. security is rarely perfect and more like an arms race, making things more difficult is a big deal. This kind of "you can hack Y too" argument doesn't make any sense if its way harder to hack Y than X.
Is that even true? In practice rather than downloading a single package you'd download/update a bunch of packages over the same connection, and an attacker would only see the accumulated size, right?
No they aren't. HTTPS fingerprinting is easy. It's been done by lcamtuf years ago and it's available as a layer 7 filter in Linux... TLS adds more information because it prevents proxies and has specific server implementations.
Every time this comes up, it's always the same handful of incorrect arguments made in favor of HTTPS.
The cargo-cult mentality that HTTPS == security really does more damage than it does good.