• JustADirtyLurker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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 (https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-July/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 https://build.opensuse.org and https://mpr.makedeb.org there are also at least two offers that are somewhat similar to AUR.

    • webjukebox@mujico.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • iopq@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    NixOS has NUR, but it’s not necessary because they take everyone’s pull requests in the official repo. I’ve been maintaining the software I use myself on the official nixpkgs, so I don’t need to use the NUR.

  • shotgun_crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    openSUSE has OBS, Fedora has COPR, and I’m pretty sure both Gentoo and NixOS have similar stuff. Do Ubuntu’s PPAs count? Flatpaks and AppImages are also similar, although they are more limited and they aren’t exactly “standard” packages.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      PPAs are fundamentally flawed. Since each repository is separate, they only care to maintain consistency internally, plus the packages of the Ubuntu version they were based on.

      Adding a PPA and using its packages on your system takes your dependency tree into a “cul de sac” where only that PPA is reliable.

      But of course people use multiple PPAs so what happens is that the dependency tree grows increasingly unrecoverable.

      Eventually you get the dreaded “requires X but cannot be installed” errors which pretty much mean you’ve hit a dead end. You can recover your system from it (aptitude can provide solutions) but they are extremely invasive, basically come down to uninstalling and reinstalling thousands of packages to bring your tree back to a manageable state.

      • shotgun_crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I admit I haven’t used Ubuntu in years, so I didn’t think they were that bad. Thanks for the info, it made me learn a dependency hell scenario I never thought about before.

        • Balder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s basically one reason I stopped using Ubuntu.

          I wanted to use the up to date version of FFMPEG, had to download the binary from the website. Wanted to install some program that needed the latest version of KDE, had to install a PPA which updated a LOT of packages and at the end it would break many other apps installed from other PPAs.

          At some point I realized using Arch was just much less work than worrying myself about all the dependencies that could break when you don’t stick to what’s available in their official repositories.

    • Molecular0079@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      OBS and COPR don’t even come close to the AUR in terms of ease of use. AUR is one searchable index, OBS and COPR are more like separate repositories that you have to find and add manually. There’s multiple people building the same packages and you have to figure out which one you want to rely on. You also can’t easily edit the packaging instructions and rebuild a package if it doesn’t work for you.

      • Lemmy.ml@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s opi which does the whole search-and-add-repos thing for you, for OBS. Not sure if there’s something similar for COPR.

        It’s still separate repositories, though, I’ll grant you that.

  • Mayoman68@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because the AUR is a pretty low quality repo. Not sure if anything has changed since 2 years ago, but last I used arch, the AUR was full of broken, abandoned, and unbuildable packages. The Debian repos, fedora+rpmfusion, etc, provide a comparable number of software packages with substantially higher quality, hence no need for the AUR. Fedora actually has COPRs which suffer from the same quality issues as the AUR for similar reasons.

    • Don't Ask My Name@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thing is, the AUR isn’t really meant to be your primary repo. You can really get anything into the AUR.

      The reason why I love it so much is because if I need a package that’s not in the main arch repo (which tbh isn’t many), then I don’t need to bother going to some github page and compiling from source, I can just find it in the AUR and it’s all done for me. I did this with things like goverlay and it’s one thing that I immediately miss when I distro hop away from something arch-based.

  • ghariksforge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I admit AUR was a huge reason why I made the move to Arch. But with Flatpak gaining more and more traction, the benefits of AUR are shrinking fast.

    • Don't Ask My Name@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Main reason I like the AUR is for really niche packages that aren’t in any main repos. Smaller github projects, forks of main projects that fix bugs, basically anything that you would otherwise have to compile from source is on the AUR. And while you still might have to compile it, it’s all setup and managed for you, which I really like.

    • iusearchbtw@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The AUR still has a lot of niche software that hasn’t been Flatpakked, but yeah. Flatpaks are way more convenient, especially for large software where AUR compilation can take a long time.

        • EddyBot@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          you probably only compile on one thread if you have a default /etc/makepkg.conf
          though compiling a firefox browser on 12+ threads still takes several minutes up to half an hour
          (try doing that with a chromium browser, thats hours rather than minutes)

          • Brad Ganley@toad.work
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I ended up going with librewolf-bin. The flatpak version had some issues for me because my configs are a spaghetti nightmare

      • methodicalaspect@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. DaVinci Resolve Studio and Blackmagic hardware drivers are examples of that kind of niche software that I use on a regular basis. The only supported route for that stuff is RHEL/CentOS, and those don’t seem particularly well-suited to my main machine’s other purpose, which is games. If someone’s already done the legwork to solve the problem for Arch, and the build files check out, why reinvent the wheel?

        Additionally, it’s the only distro I could get Resolve Studio working on with an AMD GPU consistently.

        For the most part, though, the official repos and Flathub give me what I need.

      • Ashley@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chatgpt didn’t do a great job of contrasting them. Flatpak is also transparent

          • LoudWaterHombre@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Flatpak acts like its virtualizing the applications, AUR shipped binaries are build by trusted arch users. Those eco systems operate on totally different levels, there are (more) audits in AUR.

            Flatpak or god forbid even Snap are fucked up software distribution platforms you should only use as last resort and when the software you are trying to get is not available on your OS repository/package manager and should be simply avoided.

            • CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah, it’s subjective. You trust AUR users rather than flatpak users. Flatpak and snap are hardly comparable. The flaws of Snap are not the flaws of Flatpak. You also prefer binaries to sandboxed apps. You’re old school?

              • LoudWaterHombre@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It is not subjective. Its not any AUR user, there are big streams tested especially for that certain system by trusted people before releasing.

                And for the record, your sandboxed apps are also binaries and to set it straight, flatpak is mostly not really virtualizing your app. It’s complete garbage, have a look at how flatpak achieves this “virtualization” and how it’s implemented in 9 out of 10 flatpaks.

    • constantokra@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I tried arch and got rid of it after a couple months because of the aur. Do people just not check out what they’re installing? Every time I wanted a new software i’d have to check it out to make sure it was legit, and every time I updated i’d have to check the diffs to make sure it was still legit. Otherwise, who knows what you’re actually installing.

      • ghariksforge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        you don’t have to use AUR if you don’t want to.

        Often the AUR file is very short and just a link to a repo.

  • unix_joe@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The setup is kind of a kind of a logical fallacy here. More people are using Debian and RPM based distributions than Arch Linux. That being said:

    Arch Linux has the AUR because at the time it was developed, the standards for distributing software on Linux were either RPM or DEB repositories. AUR was a necessity because one could get software on those distributions from the official vendor, but nobody was supporting Arch Linux. So it was a stopgap, an equalizer for one outlier platform.

    It’s hardly the first such repository: FreeBSD ports and NetBSD pkgsrc predate the AUR by over a decade. Slackpkg predates AUR by a couple of years as well, though possibly not slapt-get. Gentoo has portage. Anyway, they took an idea that was already well-established, and catered it to a distribution that had fewer software options than major distributions.

    These days it’s still the same scenario: a placeholder, to equalize what’s available for Arch Linux users versus other distributions.

    People use Arch because it is a rolling release with a well-documented wiki. AUR is a nice perk, but hardly the main reason that people are using Arch Linux, given that other similar systems have existed for older distributions and operating systems for longer.

    • ycnz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the Arch Wiki is incredible, even as a non-Arch user, it’s such a valuable source of knowledge.

    • Nayviler@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t believe the setup is a fallacy, the AUR is one of the main reasons I use Arch. Sure, other distros may have similar systems in place, but the number of packages available on these systems just doesn’t compare. I did a brief amount of research, according to the FreeBSD manual, there are “over 30,000” ports available. In comparison, there are over 90,000 packages available on the AUR, and all of those are in addition to the ~13,000 packages in the official Arch repositories. If I want to obtain a piece of software, even if it isn’t in the arch repos, odds are, someone has already gone through the trouble of figuring out how to build/package it, and has added the PKGBUILD to the AUR.

      This way of doing things is so much more elegant compared to how things are done on Debian or Red Hat-derived distros, where the solution to the problem of a piece of software not being in the official repos is to either (1) scour the internet and try to find if the developer maintains a repo for your distro, (2) look to see if a third party has packaged the software for your distro, and hope and pray that they maintain it, or (3), compile the package yourself, after manually hunting down all the various libraries the application needs, determining what they’re packaged as for your particular distro. The third solution doesn’t handle updates at all, unless the application’s developer has built-in an update checker into it.

      Things are getting better as snaps and flatpaks gain popularity, but both of those systems have lots of issues of their own, and arguably aren’t anywhere near as good as a proper native package for your distro. Flatpaks don’t really work for CLI tools. Snaps are stupidly slow. Both snaps and flatpaks still struggle with theming. Applications installed with either take up way more space than their natively-packaged equivalents.

      • MischievousTomato@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Things are getting better as snaps and flatpaks gain popularity, but both of those systems have lots of issues of their own, and arguably aren’t anywhere near as good as a proper native package for your distro. Flatpaks don’t really work for CLI tools. Snaps are stupidly slow. Both snaps and flatpaks still struggle with theming. Applications installed with either take up way more space than their natively-packaged equivalents.

        Flatpaks would beat native packages if they didn’t have a trillion papercuts and issues. I’m on NixOS because I want to avoid using flatpak.

          • MischievousTomato@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I dont have links in hand, but I remember the flatpak devs saying they targeted/care about desktop gui apps. It’s one of the reasons why I won’t use flatpaks anytime soon if ever

  • SymbolicLink@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

  • restarossa@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Don’t know. The AUR is a big reason I use Arch. Obviously there’s PPAs/OBS or whatever but they’re not implemented nearly as well, I don’t need to go searching for new repos with the AUR or messing with repo priorities (fun times on Suse…) since everything is in the one place and there’s procedures for taking over orphaned packages. I use about twenty or so packages from it, many of them not packaged for any other distro. Personally not interested in using Flatpak since two package management systems is not my idea of KISS. Poor man’s AUR imo :).

  • Alex@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What does the AUR get you that a:

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

    • bonfire921@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ItsPlasmaSir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Andy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

  • LoudWaterHombre@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    AUR is definitely not the reason people choose arch haha

    Fellow Linux folks, this direction is one of the main problems and you know it very darn well.

  • D_Air1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably for the same reasons why there are so many packaging formats in the first place. If everyone settled on deb, rpm, or arch style tar packages. Then we wouldn’t need the aur, flatpak, snap, appimage or anything else.