Just an example, one of many. Check the upstream. Four months old. Two contributors: some human and an orange asshole. Human has no other repositories, so I guess the asshole is the more trustworthy one.

I'm assuming this is just some vibe coded bullshit where someone just said yes to everything Claude asked. I'd read the code to confirm it's not malicious but this person has already wasted enough of my time already.

Anyway AUR is not going to survive the Eternal Sloptober.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 day ago (1 child)

this is the intended purpose of the AUR. it was never promised to be high quality or secure code, which is why there are warnings against using it if that is your concern. moth wonders why you complain about something you were told you must accept when using the AUR.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 day ago

    Its a common courtesy that if you publish something on the AUR, then you actually think people would use it and you plan to maintain it. You don't bother pushing some half baked afterthought to the AUR. Leave it on github. Otherwise you're just squatting a perfectly good AUR package name.

  • source
  • parent