Hi. Just want to share a thought I have for a future implementation.
I know this is terminal centric and thats fine, but personally speaking I would like to see the option of installing a gui package manager only from the welcome app though, similar to how it gives users the choice of installing chromium and other optional packages already. Thus still remaining terminal centric at the core and only giving users the option to do so via the welcome app.
1 Like
everyone different ā¦ you might like gui which ok 
I not like which ok Personally i feel EOS Devās have it right ! They help with basics and if you want or need more you installā¦
1 Like
I know this is a vegan restaurant and thatās fine, but personally speaking I would like to see beef burgers and pork sausages on the menu.
Welcome to the forum, btw. 
8 Likes
Tis no different to offering the browser and firewall options in the welcome app
The reason for not having a GUI package manager is simple: Arch does not provide it.
There are several AUR helpers (with and without GUI), so you can install such an app, e.g.
yay -S pamac-aur-git
Another reason is that there have been many issues with GUI package managers. So far only pacman has proven to be reliable. We support also yay which has been working well so far.
As you may know, AUR packages are provided by any user, and not by the Arch development team.That means you use them at your own risk.
7 Likes
This is just my personal opinion but the difference is one of support.
All of the graphical package managers are imperfect in some way and including them in the Welcome app would imply some degree of support.
Conversely, if you want to install a graphical package manager it is easy to do manually.
12 Likes
there is also some others mayby not the beauty but hidden gems like
- pkgbrowser
- vpacman (just gui frontend-
- tkpacman
- octopi
- bauh
mayby some more 
2 Likes
I have already compiled Pamac so for me itās not an issue, but I was more meaning for newcomers to EnOS would make it easier for them. And I was specificall talking about Pamac being included in the Welcome App. Provided its working, which it does, then thereās no reason to not include it in the Welcome App for users to choose weather to install it or not. Even if the devs provided a custom or non AUR version maintained solely in their own repoās, then I canāt see why it shouldnāt be an optionā¦not proprietary, just an option.
Octopi is terrible btw and pkgbrowser. The rest are ok tho.
And I know about AUR Helpers and how to compile and search the AUR, etc, but I was more thinking about newcomers wanting to browse a package list or catalog, rather than knowing what they need or want to install upfront. Being able to browse a package list easily is important to some.
everyone has is opion offcourse, pkgbrowser is just a browser at the end users wil look for things to do anyway. Mayby a page for several options to use as package manager not special in particular in pamac. using pacman itself is more stable then not using pacman other wise you must rebuild in time when some changes come.
As an additional note to @manuelās explanation: The distro EndeavourOS originated from, Antergos, shipped Pamac by default.
All of the EndeavourOS founding members, including myself, were moderators on the Antergos forum and we all saw the havoc and sometimes anger from the community when Pamac had an upstream bug, because they were relying too much on it.
A lot of users assumed that it was the responsibility of the devs to fix or hold back an update for such an app, since it was shipped by default.
If we put Pamac, or any other GUI helper, in the welcome app, thereās a big chance new users will react the same, simply because weāve put it in the welcome app as a recommendation. Our team is too small to monitor apps like these. If new users install it themselves, they will treat it differently.
Before you say that we put other apps in the welcome app, those apps donāt have the same reliability factor for a new user as a GUI pacman helper. People are more likely to switch browsers if an update borked it than switch to the terminal instead of a GUI pacman tool.
Perhaps you can read this article to understand our point of view:
13 Likes
Pamac belongs to Manjaro its unstable and not suited to Arch systems you only need to look on the Manjaro forums to the amount of damage Pamac does, trying to reinvent the wheel never works
Use tkpacman at least it does what it says on the box just works.
5 Likes
Iāve only had two issue with Pamac and neither one was actually directly because of it. THat said I typically run it to see what updates are out there so I can decide if I want to launch Konsole and run Topgrade.
Thatās a plan But nothing is better than pacman never let me down since 2004
5 Likes
Basicly endeavouros does not force alien packagemanagers, there is a huge flexibilty of your own choice. What you choose id your own best. But to start with pacman is always golden even for starters, when you have a simple pm, pacman become easy to ignore basicly. But pacman is fundamental 
4 Likes
I can understand and appreciate why there is hesitance to add a GUI Pkg manager to the welcome app. But I still think even tkpacman being inplemented in the welcome app would be a good addition.
Also Pamac has never failed me on Pure Arch, Manjaro or so far EnOS.
That said, you could always just have a disclaimer text when or before users install Pamac or a GUI pkg manager. Itās not really that difficult to do so and would waive the responsibility from you onto the user. Options are also good.
That i disagree, pamac is way better and more full-featured 
tkpacman is kinda pointless as it doesnāt add anything to pacman functionality really, but pamac makes discovering, searching software and checking details just faster & easier.
But i doubt it will be added 
1 Like
I agree with all of this. I only mentioned pkpacman because everyone was shitting all over Pamac basically saying itās too unreliable.
I like Pamac, in my 5 years of using Arch, regardless of the Arch distro Iāve never had any issues with it.
Itās not like I was asking to implement it fully into the distro, just simply suggested giving an option using the welcome app.
And as I said, they could easily just add a disclaimer of āUse at your own risk for so and so reasonā. Simple solution.
I doubt itāll be added too. Seems GUI here means nothing and is kinda frowned upon. Thatās how I feel after being here for only 1 day.
1 Like
Well, as you yourself noted in your first post:
The option to add a GUI package manager is available for anyone who wants to do so.
4 Likes
Yes, but my point after that was firewall, chromium, bluetooth, etc were already in the welcome app and while I understand itās terminal centric, giving the option to add to them with adding a gui pkg manager, especially for browsing sakes would be a good option even if they put a disclaimer saying āuse at your own riskā.
Not all Arch newcomers know how to/nor want to compile basic things like that. My suggestion was about making it a more appealing distro to not just experiences Archers, but potential newcomers too.
And the option isnāt available as a 1 click option like the other items in the welcome app. Why have a welcome app to begin with if the option to install firewall, bluetooth, chromium, etc is also an option to anyone who wants to do so via the command line. So your theory has no credit to stand on because every package is available as an option via command line.
And if they add a disclaimer prior to installing it, then wtf is the issue.
Ive read through a ton of posts here regarding anything GUI based, and it definitely feels frowned upon and GUI is second class citizen on here it seems. That irks me from recommending this distro to others. Iām happy with it, but purely for the frowning upon GUI/Pkg manager alone, Itās making it hard to recommend for others.