Manjaro KDE: Octopi or Pamac?

Manjaro KDE by default installs Octopi instead of Pamac. The rationale is that Octopi is Qt-based and it makes more sense to use it with KDE Plasma than a GTK-based alternative such as Pamac. I know that users can switch to Pamac after installing Manjaro KDE, but given that Pamac lately appears to be way ahead of Octopi it may be the case of asking whether it wouldn't make sense to switch to it in the default installation. I believe both RevengeOS and Antergos install Pamac by default with KDE. Could you please share your thoughts on that?


Command line. Does everything I need. Easy, simple, good feedback.


I have used both, and I see little difference.


I only use octopi to install or remove software and to be notified for update that I perform from terminal.. so octopi is fine for me
I never really used pamac.. does it propose to choose which optional dependency to install?


I'd also like to know if there are negatives with using Pamac on KDE
and answers like :

have nothing to do with the thread title.


It does not. It installs no optional dependencies as far as I know, unless you go in afterwards and click the "install" button on each of them afterwards.


GTK has a long history of theme breakage, abusive feature removal, unstable ABI, inconsistent performance, poor portability, slow launching, and ignoring their users.

On the other hand QT just works fine everywhere.


@es20490446e proper cheered me up, a fellow GTK heretic - just watch out for the Gnome inquisition.....


I use octopi/pamac merely as a notification agent, doing the update in the command line.
But I love the octopi octopus, it's so cute!



Double ditto!



Which is ironic, as my software philosophy is super close to them. Just I think they abused it.

More important than having the best and simplest design, is having a design that works.


Afaik, even kde minimal profile pulls gtk3, so dependencies are not a good reason to avoid it. However, I'm not sure if any autostart applications already load gtk3. This, combined with the fact that the notification agent of pamac pretty hefty, might lead to non-trivial increase in ram usage, and possibly a slight lengthening of desktop startup time.

So, case for pamac in kde edition:


  • icons for applications
  • promised flatpak and snap support in the future
  • manjaro native tool
  • branch management


  • possible increase in ram usage and shell startup time
  • possible theming inconsistency
  • possible breakage

Some theming issues could be avoided by

  1. using gtk3-classic (kde native titlebars)
  2. using the default adwaita theme with manjaro paint job

Personally, I would not do it at least yet, but possibly in the future. Gtk3 has stabilized a lot and is projected to stabilize further. Once it gets flatpak and snap support, it might be worth some extra resource usage. But that time is not yet.


So do I

I am using both and I just can't decide, both are fine and each of them has seperate strengths.

Octopi, e.g. notifies me about updated AUR packates (pamac does not) although I have to trace them in octopi and install them expressly. Octopi also offers to clean package cache and lists AUR packages at all (which pamac does not), the Distro-News RSS function is neat and the animated Octopus icon is perfectly cute.

Pamac on the other hand, while not integrating into KDE (I don't care for a package manager as long as it does function properly, which it does here) sorts packages by functional category or source repository, has a history and can show orphaned packages.

I tend to use pamac more often, but always peek into octopi for AUR updates. I like the layout of octopi more and it is also a bit more informative, but pamac is more straightforward in functionality.

I'd say if pamac would handle AUR packages I would accept the lack of KDE integration and the IMHO second best layout and use it exclusively.

1 Like

I prefer Octopi. I mean just Octopi. No repo editor, no cache cleaner, no notifier. I'll take care of that stuff myself. In GTK DEs as well as QT.

I used to like PAMAC in GTK DEs before it got so convoluted. Not so much, now.

But I generally don't use one all that much. It's so much faster using a pkglist with a terminal. But really handy when I can't remember a package name. Like Etcher. I can never remember Etcher's name.

And I, too, love the little green octopus head. :smiley:

EDIT: A few years ago we had PacmanXG4 (sic?) as a really nice package manager GUI. I dunno where it went.


Yeah, we need a Qamac.


No one, I have used Pamac on KDE from 6 months ago and everything is ok


Go to Preferences > AUR > tick Check for updates from AUR. Just a matter of configuring Pamac.


I'm using Manjaro KDE and I do prefer to use Pamac instead of Octopi. As a matter of fact, I've removed Octopi and replaced it with Pamac. As I'm using the Adapta theme (Plasma/kvantum/gtk), my apps look consistent (except for the shadow: KWin does not draw shadows for non-Qt applications).

And yeah, pamac should have a Qt version too but I don't think it's that necessary.

1 Like

I run KDE and use both. For system updates, I prefer Pamac and I watch it all from the terminal. But I cheat, sort of, I always wait and see what problems may be happening with an upgrade before I start my upgrade.

Forum kindly sponsored by