I was a bit tired with the update system and coded one simple that handle everything in a GUI (plus a tool to downgrade package, verify integrity, etc.
It’s a GTK4 GUI for managing system updates on EndeavourOS. Update official packages, AUR (yay/paru/etc.), and Flatpaks in one place.
Features:
Unified updates for pacman, AUR, and Flatpak
Automatic BTRFS snapshots before updates
System integrity checks and network diagnostics
Package downgrade tool (from cache)
Mirror management with reflector
Package cache cleanup and orphan removal
Built with GTK4/libadwaita. Uses PolicyKit for security with a single password prompt.
Download & Installation:
Available at: Cancelled
The website includes installation instructions, screenshots, and feature details. Extract the tarball, install dependencies, and set up PolicyKit (instructions on the site).
Feedbacks, bug reports and suggestions welcome. I only tested it on my system because I first built it for myself and the machines I manage. Of course, use at your own risk
My feedback is that running repo updates with --noconfirm is completely unsafe on an Arch-based distro. Almost everyone who does this ends up with a broken system at some point.
I can’t tell you how many times I have seen someone brag about how using --noconfirm is safe only to come back a few months later when an update broke their system or their updates no longer work.
My opinion is that if you want automated or unattended updates, you shouldn’t use a standard Arch-based distro. It just isn’t made for that use case without some significant workarounds.
In addition to my above feedback I should also say thanks for joining in order to contribute to the community. It is great to see people wanting to share things.
You have a well presented website @csm. Well done. Is source code available for this?
Is there also any reason this needs to be EndeavourOS specific? That is, could it not be broadly applicable to Arch? That might then lend itself to an AUR entry for your package.
Just thoughts. Personally I’m comfortable with the CLI tools, but I know of some folk who might consider EndeavourOS as a replacement for Windows, but are hesitant when it comes to CLI management.
The only feature I tried to add but it didn’t work out well was a “postponing update” feature.
I wanted to add a delay update feature where the update isn’t applied before X days has passed (for safety against malformed update) since it was pushed in the repo.
But I discovered the build date doesn’t come as a regular info from repo (bad design here) and I had to parse websites to get that info… which made the tool super slow. So I just removed that feature.
My two cents is always update from your terminal. GUI’s are great for check for updates, but not always reliable to do them correctly. To that end we already have Topgrade which is a GREAT terminal program to update pretty much anything you can think of.
You specifically asked for feedback. While it is not the feedback you were looking for, doesn’t make it wrong. Let me state that you are asking for feedback in a forum for users of a terminal-centric linux distribution.
Asking for Feedback and your surprised that most of us would rather use the Terminal? Personally I don’t think these tools should exist. USERS need to know how to manage their systems MANUALLY. I have seen people come in here and not even know how to do a disk check. While tools like this have their place I don’t think Arch/Arch Based is that place.
I never said it was useless. I only stated that I don’t think they should exist. I also gave an example why (newbs don’t even know how to do a basic disk check) yet they will be the ones attracted to a project like this without really knowing what it’s doing. And as long as a project like this exist some never will. They will just keep trying other GUI’s until something works. This is Arch where you need to be able to do things on YOUR OWN.
Advice you should take. I never got upset you did.
Most of us have tried Gui based update tools and have broken our systems at least once. It’s coming from personal experience. We don’t want others to have the same horrible experiences.
I have reread the answers, and I do not read this out of any of the answers. Only @dalto and @Locutus answered before you stormed off. Dalto added useful insights (trust me, @dalto is very knowledgeable in linux) that you might not have considered, and Locutus added the process used there.
We are known as a friendly bunch, and we want to be friendly. So if we can get a dialog started, let us talk a little bit more about why you read “all your work is useless” when nobody said that. The absolute worst you can read into that is that EOS already has great tools for updates. Other, more graphically inclined distributions might have more use for that. Or give the thread more time, maybe some other users will chip in and commend you for the tool.
Also, everybody welcomed you to the forum. Very friendly.
A massive knee-jerk NO is to be expected (according to my experience) whenever anything new is introduced that goes against “The way” people are used to do things.
You are not alone in getting that sort of reaction.
I could only concur with the feedback in post #2 above about the --noconfirm option.
Keep developing your tool the way you want it to work for you and keep sharing with the community!
There will always be those who will give you constructive feedback. And those who come forward with a missive NO tattooed on their forehead.
forums