Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy] (Read 4134 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Hello, I'm an old Artix user (back from it's Arch-OpenRC days from systemd-free), but I only recently made the forum account. So I'm sorry that I have some typos and formatting.

Recently, I noticed that we have several AUR helpers like yaourt, pamac and octopi in [galaxy].

Why does the package included in [galaxy]? Does this mean Artix team officially support these AUR helpers? Arch Wiki explicitly said that they don't support AUR helpers so that's why they stayed in AUR.

If Artix aims to be like Arch (like what artoo (albeit indirectly) said here), shouldn't we remove the package since AUR is outside Artix's responsiblity?

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #1 –
Quote from: contrarian – on
Hello, I'm an old Artix user (back from it's Arch-OpenRC days from systemd-free), but I only recently made the forum account. So I'm sorry that I have some typos and formatting.

Recently, I noticed that we have several AUR helpers like yaourt, pamac and octopi in [galaxy].

Why does the package included in [galaxy]? Does this mean Artix team officially support these AUR helpers? Arch Wiki explicitly said that they don't support AUR helpers so that's why they stayed in AUR.

If Artix aims to be like Arch (like what artoo (albeit indirectly) said here), shouldn't we remove the package since AUR is outside Artix's responsiblity?
I for one am very happy that Octopi is in the galaxy repo. It is not, strictly speaking, only an "aur helper", but rather a very powerful pacman frontend and software manager in it's own right. I run Artix with Plasma desktop and Octopi integrates very well. You can chose not to enable it's "aur helper" facility.
I believe that Pamac also allows for the "aur helper" facility to be disabled as well, although I am not all that familiar with it's function.

Best regards.
We should try to be kind to everyone.....we are all fighting some sort of battle.

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #2 –
Quote from: conky60 – on
I for one am very happy that Octopi is in the galaxy repo. It is not, strictly speaking, only an "aur helper", but rather a very powerful pacman frontend and software manager in it's own right. I run Artix with Plasma desktop and Octopi integrates very well. You can chose not to enable it's "aur helper" facility.
I believe that Pamac also allows for the "aur helper" facility to be disabled as well, although I am not all that familiar with it's function.

Best regards.
Yes conky60 you are right about Pamac and as far as I know aur is not enabled by default.
 

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #3 –
Quote from: contrarian – on
Hello, I'm an old Artix user (back from it's Arch-OpenRC days from systemd-free), but I only recently made the forum account. So I'm sorry that I have some typos and formatting.

Recently, I noticed that we have several AUR helpers like yaourt, pamac and octopi in [galaxy].

Why does the package included in [galaxy]? Does this mean Artix team officially support these AUR helpers? Arch Wiki explicitly said that they don't support AUR helpers so that's why they stayed in AUR.

If Artix aims to be like Arch (like what artoo (albeit indirectly) said here), shouldn't we remove the package since AUR is outside Artix's responsiblity?
Yes, arch linux does state they don't support AUR helpers. They also state that they don't support OpenRC: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenRC
We are very much like Arch Linux. But naturally there will be differences. We don't/won't follow every single little policy that they enforce.

Sometimes we will have packages that don't exist in arch linux's official repos(OpenRC, runit, pamac, etc). We also will sometimes not have packages that exist in Arch Linux(anything systemd related as an example). In the case of Pamac, it was added because our users wanted it and were asking for it, and I really don't see the reason why it shouldn't be included, it is a GUI front end for pacman. As far as AUR Helpers go, I am against them personally, but I don't plan to stop people from using them, it is their choice.

It is important to remember that we are not Arch Linux. Our philosophies, policies, and methodologies are not the same. A good comparison of this would be to look at the relationship between Debian and Ubuntu. Debian is the upstream distro and Ubuntu is the downstream distro which is based on Debian. Debian does not include any binary blobs for kernel drivers in their install media. Ubuntu does include them on the install media and in their offical repos. This effects me personally, in Debian when I boot the default ISO on my notebook I have no wifi drivers which means I can't use the internet at all and the installation fails. In ubuntu the installation works just fine. The same relationship happens here, Arch Linux is where we get our upstream package builds, but that doesn't mean we have to do things the exact same way that they do. There can and will be differences based on the Artix developers design plans.

What will be the same as Arch Linux:
  • Pure packages, we will not modify packages, they will be just like upstream intended them to be.
  • No hand holding, you are responsible for your system and it's configuration, we don't auto configure things for you. It's stability depends on you.
This means that it is very much so like Arch Linux, but there will be differences here and there.
Chris Cromer

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Chris Cromer – on
In the case of Pamac, it was added because our users wanted it and were asking for it
Can I ask for trizen inclusion instead of yaourt? The only thing i use yaourt for is to quickly install trizen and then get rid of yaourt  :D
Of the various AUR helpers, trizen seems to do the best job, IMO.

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Artemis3 – on
Can I ask for trizen inclusion instead of yaourt?

Why does it have to be instead?  Like the repository is running out of empty seats?  What if I said I want pacui instead of trizen, would that make any sense?
As you say you needed yaourt to get trizen, why not ask how else would you have gotten trizen from aur without yaourt?  Or how does one from arch get yaourt or trizen?  https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository

Yes it is alot easier to use some of those wrappers than doing it manually, sort of speak.  But it is good to know that you can do it otherwise if you wanted, then choose the quicker easier way.  It is the conscious choice that makes you free, dependence to the easy solution is a step away from freedom -- thus autonomy.

PS  My newest discovery is powerpill and bauerbill ... but I don't know if I can trust them enough, I am studying them. 

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Artemis3 – on
Can I ask for trizen inclusion instead of yaourt? The only thing i use yaourt for is to quickly install trizen and then get rid of yaourt  :D
Of the various AUR helpers, trizen seems to do the best job, IMO.
I will add it this weekend.
Chris Cromer

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Artemis3 – on
Can I ask for trizen inclusion instead of yaourt? The only thing i use yaourt for is to quickly install trizen and then get rid of yaourt  :D
Of the various AUR helpers, trizen seems to do the best job, IMO.

Look guys this is not Manjaro with its I want attitude,
 Trizen is a good Helper I use it My self, But don't believe the hype about it being more secure, or better than any other helper.
In fact yaourt does a lot more than any other helper is more configurable like it you can specify any folder to build packages and it will still clean up after itself on reboot.

 Then their is   yay  another excellent AUR helper that also does not use temps to build packages,  they are all very simple to install from AUR don't take up any space on the repro and most important don't need any maintainance.

Also if you can't  build a package by hand why are you using Artix in the 1st place Its not arch fair enough but it certainly not a Manjaro hold your hand wipe your arse Distro.

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #9 –
I have been just downloading aur pacakges to a folder called /build.

I then makepkg -sic PKGBUILD via terminal to install. Has been working ok for me so far, is that not a good idea?

I suppose aur wrappers are good for a few things but i like to be selective what i install from the aur and will research it before i commit.

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #10 –
@Seventh maybe

Code: [Select]
#!/bin/bash
# Mr Green's very poor Aur helper script
# licence bound to break!

# Download and extract package
git clone https://aur.archlinux.org/${1}.git
tar -xvf ${1}.tar.gz

# Go into directory
cd ${1}

# Install any needed desp then build
makepkg -si # -r / -c could be added if required.


Mr Green ArchBang Iso Developer

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #11 –
^ nice one.

I really need to learn how to bash script. Is there a way to put the file somewhere else other than home? Or could the git file be deleted after install or is it worth keeping the git file?

Re: pamac and octopi should be removed from [galaxy]

Reply #12 –
If by any chance you think you may need to reinstall, yes put it in /var/cache/pacman/pkg
But the question applies to any package, whether you keep them after installation or clear your cache.