[SOLVED] Pamac not needed ?

Marcin · 2016-02-17 12:26:07

Last issues with Pamac have been solved. It works as it should be. But having a day or two when it was not available (did not want to start) was a nice experience for me. I realised that I do not need it. I can save a lot of RAM and I can easily use terminal commands to check updates (including yaourt). The only thing missing is HISTORY LOG. That Pamac's tool helps a lot when something goes wrong and you may need to know what to downgrade.

I also do not need that red icon telling me that updates are available. I never do any updates ones they are available. I do them when I have a time.

Is there any alternative log I can create when upgrading or updating using terminal?

Last edited by Marcin (2016-02-17 13:26:39)

WorMzy · 2016-02-17 12:32:04

No, it's not needed, that's why it's not available on Arch by default. Are you using a different distro?

Moving to AUR issues.

ayekat · 2016-02-17 12:39:50

/var/log/pacman.log

Although, it strives me as particularly odd that you would (A) consider the existence of Pamac/Yaourt as self-evident, and (B) consider using the command line to interact with pacman as a novelty. Are you running something else than Arch Linux?

ymihc · 2016-02-17 12:55:40

Maybe he's running Manjaro; "pamac" is one of their two standard GUIs for pacman and AUR.

In the comment section of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pamac-aur/ is a worth reading ironical comment from subjectdenied ( 2016-02-01 09:21) about pamac:

February 1st, 2020, World: Starting monday, arch linux based distro users worldwide are not able to use pamac and yaourt, the linux distributors graphical user interface to the command-line based pacman-package-tool. asked by a reporter the company's spokesman replied, that a recent update to said tool, obviously broke their competitors antergos and manjaro linux graphical user interface for package-management. pamac is especially used by linux user, less experienced with the command-line-interface, or simply wanting the comfort of getting update-notification on desktop environments like gnome and kde. According to Arch the problem came from a decision to put the pacman-tool on the stable repository within 48 hours, which simply didn't give their competitors enough time to modify the source code of their tools to ensure compatibility. As one online user on twitter points out "after we finally reached the year of linux desktop some time ago in 2016, this is an embarressement and a slap in the face for every arch linux based distro user out there", Arch shares already dropped 3% percent. Redhat announced today that they will release a migration tool for arch user to ease the switch over to their fedora linux distribution. When asked for a comment about the situation, one arch maintainer responded with "it's the cli, stupid!"

Marcin · 2016-02-17 12:55:46

Thanks WorMzy and ayekat.

No, I do not use anything else. There was a time I was playing with Manjaro but I decided to stick to Arch only.

So, is there any way I can create any history log when doing updates via terminal ? I agree that I may not need it till something goes wrong and I may not know/remember what was updated or what I may need to downgrade?

ymihc · 2016-02-17 12:58:14

@Marcin:

ayekat wrote:

/var/log/pacman.log

Marcin · 2016-02-17 13:24:42

Sorry I missed that. /var/log/pacman.log - got it.
Many thanks everyone.

It works perfectly well for me. You hit the point. Goodby Pamac!

Last edited by Marcin (2016-02-17 13:25:44)

Arch Linux

#1 2016-02-17 12:26:07

[SOLVED] Pamac not needed ?

#2 2016-02-17 12:32:04

Re: [SOLVED] Pamac not needed ?

#3 2016-02-17 12:39:50

Re: [SOLVED] Pamac not needed ?

#4 2016-02-17 12:55:40

Re: [SOLVED] Pamac not needed ?

#5 2016-02-17 12:55:46

Re: [SOLVED] Pamac not needed ?

#6 2016-02-17 12:58:14

Re: [SOLVED] Pamac not needed ?

#7 2016-02-17 13:24:42

Re: [SOLVED] Pamac not needed ?

Board footer