So updating a client’s system I find that the updates affecting pacman/yay are affecting pamac also, in that it won’t install pamac-aur nor pamac-aur-git, nor pamac-all. So he can wait patiently. Yay is working fine
pamac is synced with Manjaro’s release cycle so it could be a while.
The bug report has a comment from the developer:
The port to libalpm 13 is not trivial and I don’t have a time ATM to do it. Be patient.
Pacman 6 and alpm13 has been coming for a while now though, pretty poor planning to not have this on the development radar far earlier.
Octopi is currently in the same boat, the developer is porting
alpm_octopi_utils to libalpm 13 too.
On the one hand, it does seem strange that it hasn’t even been started yet. On the other hand, pamac is really targeting Manjaro and they have control over when they introduce pacman 6 so they don’t have to worry about the timing as much.
I have no excuse for this case…
Manjaro unstable is based on arch stable repositories. So it is logical that it will take some times before code is fixed.
Octopi? I was not aware it was still alive.
Code has been available for quite a while though … waiting until something is released and reacting is amateur hour.
I don’t use either.
I think this is a wonderful opportunity to ditch Pamac, which by any standard, is not a particularly good piece of software, and use pacman, like the good lord intended. And some terminal aur helper, like yay, perhaps.
I have to disagree. I think pacman 6 development version were not available in staging repositories.
With an horrible UI… Erh, I mean a classical UI for Free Software projects.
Hey now, that’s where they SHINE. Don’t rain on the amateur parade.
The pacman 6 alpha code was released over 6 months ago.
This should have been on their radar for most of that time, given the hard dependency on libalpm, with an eye on what could break and what would be required to mitigate.
Amateur is the polite way to put it.
Far less bugs though.
Was it the final code to work on? Working on alpha state code to make a graphical wrapper is foolish.
So, why don’t you tell that to pamac developer in front of him?
I will stay polite and don’t say a word. Anger is not a good feeling to express and idea.
I prefer a working UI instead of a bug free engine with a crappy UI. There was an OS with a shiny motor but a crappy UI. You know it, maybe… IBM OS/2.
LOL … who cares if something is riddled with bugs, as long as it looks good.
Since this seems to have gone off-topic and turned into a discussion of the quality of software the developers of octopi/pamac provide I think it is time to close this one.
The original point has been made and probably doesn’t warrant further discussion.
Further discussion of the current status of pamac’s compatibility with pacman 6 can still continue in this topic: