159
Why don't more distributions have something like the AUR when it's the main reason why so many people use Arch Linux? (lemmy.fmhy.ml)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
135 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58 points 3 years ago (5 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    The other day I died of old age compiling Librewolf from the AUR

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years 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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Comparing flatpak with AUR makes almost no sense

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Why can it not be compared? It's a repository to install software...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    A subset of AUR PKGBUILDs are downloading a prebuilt desktop application binary packaged for another distro (deb, rpm, tarball, appimage) from upstream and then unpacking it. Those packages are trying to solve some of the same problems as flatpak, distributing a generic desktop binary but often do it worse and people should be weighing the alternatives. More broadly AUR packages aren't comparable with flatpak but some are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •