There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

stsquad ,

What does the AUR get you that a:

…/configure --prefix=(pwd)/install make make install doesn’t?

ralC ,

Installing dependencies automatically mostly

bonfire921 ,

It gives you a lot of convenience, auto updates, and dependencies. While it is nice being up to date by checking the git and making it by yourself it is much more convenient to have a package manager for it when you have many Make packages

JustADirtyLurker ,

The majority of other distros value package managers that allow for complex graph evaluation of dependencies, and the ability to roll back. This is granted with rpm and Deb, but not for pkgsource, which is a pretty lightweight format compared to those.

As for AUR, the major distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora) support 3p repositories as well. The main concern is security. IIRC one of major complaints for AUR in the past was that it didn’t foresee a strongly secure distribution system.

Fryboyter , (edited )

when it’s the main reason why so many people use Arch Linux?

AUR is one reason why I use Arch. But not the reason. Besides AUR, Arch has many other advantages from my point of view. Like for example the wiki that also users of other distributions use. Or the many vanilla packages. Or that you can easily create your own packages through the PKGBUILD files. Or that, based on my own experience, Arch is quite problem-free to use despite the current packages.

One reason why other distributions don’t have something like AUR could be that AUR is not an official offering, so no verification is done in advance either. Thus, it has happened at least once that someone has manipulated PKGBUILD files in bad faith (lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/…/034151.html). The Wiki does not warn against the use for nothing.

However, it is much easier for the user to check the files in the AUR in advance than it is, for example, with ready-made packages in an unofficial PPA.

With build.opensuse.org and mpr.makedeb.org there are also at least two offers that are somewhat similar to AUR.

webjukebox ,
@webjukebox@mujico.org avatar

Arch has many other advantages from my point of view. Like for example the wiki that also users of other distributions use.

I remember when started using #! and then Debian with Openbox. It didn’t matter what problem I had, the answer and solution were always in the Arch Wiki.

Now I am full Arch user.

rikudou ,

What’s so special about it? Isn’t it just a repository? Or am I missing something? If it’s just a repo, Ubuntu has PPAs and everyone and their mother is creating PPAs.

Andy , (edited )
@Andy@programming.dev avatar

It’s a single, central, community space for build plans, which are extremely easy for anyone to create and submit.

Edit: And easier to audit than prebuilt packages

ItsPlasmaSir ,

PPAs and the AUR are very different. Where as PPAs contain prebuilt .deb packages, the AUR hosts PkgBuild scripts that typically pull from a git repo and compile a program for you.

I understand the confusion though, because they accomplish the same goal of installing software that is not in the main repos, but in different ways.

phantagom ,
@phantagom@klingon.nl avatar

Brew on Linux?

jcb2016 ,
@jcb2016@lemmy.world avatar

Arch is special 😁

ajid77 ,
@ajid77@social.linux.pizza avatar

@jcb2016 @InternetPirate I I have never tried one. What's the most difference between Arch and Ubuntu? 🤔

eruchitanda ,
@eruchitanda@lemmy.world avatar

The goals each one is trying to achieve.

Arch is build it yourself. You are presented with a CLI (command-line interface) installer, and you decide what do you want to have on your system.

Another thing Arch is trying to achieve is the principal of KISS, keep it simple. The software should do what is was meant to do, and that’s it.

Ubuntu’s ‘goal’ is to give the user experience of ‘it just works’.

Pros to Arch - you know exactly what you have on your system, and you have more control.

Cons to Arch - you are in cotrol, so you need to be careful not mess things up (if something happened, it’s the user fault).

Pros to Ubuntu - you have a lot of software installed, and you don’t need to set up a lot. So it’s very easy for new users.

Cons to Ubuntu - you have a lot of software installed. Some of them you might not use, at all (some would say it’s a bloatware).

yardy_sardley ,

It really just comes down to the differences in goals and philosophies between each distribution. Some distros have large curated repositories containing most of everything a normal user would want to use. That’s what people expect from those distros, and people use them because they want that experience. Likewise, people don’t use arch just because it has the AUR. They want a more DIY experience, and arch provides that, with the AUR being an essential part of how it works.

You’re not going to get arch users to switch to ubuntu or whatever by duct-taping an AUR clone onto it. Furthermore, I believe trying to make one distro “to rule them all” that attempts to appeal to every niche would be not only a train wreck technically, but an abomination, antithetical to the principles of the OSS community as well.

nyan ,

The equivalent for Gentoo is the overlay system. gpo.zugaina.org (which is the best total package index) claims to list over 100000 ebuilds for 56000 different packages (some packages have multiple versions in-tree), and I know their database is not complete, since I contribute occasionally to an overlay that they don’t index. Oh, and that also doesn’t include things like perl library packages autogenerated by g-cpan.

So, um, yeah, useful but not unique.

shirro ,

Many distros have independent community generated package repositories though most aren’t on official infrastructure. Ubuntu has PPA which is close. I try and avoid AUR as much as I can. It is a potential attack surface and packages are sometimes poorly maintained and break. I like it for system stuff and I mostly review the PKGBUILD. It seems like a good way for software to find a path into the official repos. There was a lot of resistance from me initially but for most desktop applications flatpak has proven to be a better solution.

crunchi ,

@InternetPirate I mean apt based distros do have ppa’s although I have found aur to have better support. theoretically though they are equivalent i believe?

colonial ,
@colonial@lemmy.world avatar

The AUR is nice and all, but the reality is that most people will be served just fine (if not better) by the more curated repositories. Fedora’s bundled repositories are more than enough for my dev work - and thanks to Flatpak and AppImage, closing any gaps is pretty easy.

words_number ,

In my experience the AUR is a dumpsterfire where half of the stuff doesn’t work or breaks other things in your system. Definitely not a reason to switch to arch or manjaro for me.

SymbolicLink , (edited )

I think looking at the two major enterprise players (Red Hat and Canonical) can give hints.

Fedora: run by Red Hat, upstream of RHEL. No way they are going to allow an unreviewed repository to be shipped with fedora by default. But they do have guides to add RPM fusion, and copr repos (the closest equivalent)

Ubuntu: run by Canonical. No way they are going to allow an unreviewed repository to be shipped with Ubuntu by default. But they do host and have guides for PPAs (closest AUR equivalent)

Debian: kind of the base layer for a lot of other distros. Debian itself is kept very minimal, and has a whole philosophy on what packages are allowed.

Edit: I realized this implies PPAs, copr and the AUR are the same when I know they aren’t functionally. I am just trying to highlight the motivations behind the distros and how it may play a part

InternetPirate OP ,

PPAs aren’t convenient at all compared to the AUR. Pacstall is the AUR for Ubuntu it just needs more packages. I would still be on Linux Mint if Pacstall was as extensive as the AUR.

SymbolicLink ,

Yeah that’s true.

I guess I was coming at it more from a “why doesn’t Ubuntu/fedora/debian promote or endorse something like the AUR in their official docs”

But yeah no distro really has an AUR, and it’s kind of a chicken and egg problem now because the barrier to entry for the AUR is much lower than anything else

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines