back
8 comments
The AUR has consistently had warnings around it of 'verify the PKGBUILD', far more so than any other package repository that allows anyone to sign up. Probably the only notable difference is the ease of taking over an orphaned package.
The AUR is not the Arch package manager or repository. The main Arch package repos are managed similarly to Debian, or Fedora, or whatever--caveat Arch's nature as a rolling release, but in terms of vetting and ownership/security, the approaches are similar. pacman installs from regular, real, vetted repositories by default. pacman will never install from the AUR. pacman is the official Arch package manager and the only one that is provided with the main Arch distribution/install instructions.

The AUR is, as many others have pointed out, a deliberately un-vetted pile of random Git repos. Arch deliberately doesn't even ship with a default one-click installer for AUR packages; their published guidance is "git clone this stuff from wherever it's hosted and build it at your own risk". Plenty of third-party, non-Arch-blessed tools turn that into a one-click process, but it's not "part" of Arch itself--at least not any more than, like, curl | bash or directions on how to add rando websites to /etc/apt/sources.list.d is part of Debian and friends.

I've used Arch as a daily driver for years. At peak, I've had five (5) total packages, with no transitives, installed from the AUR. Today I have one: sublime-text-4. It's perfectly possible--and extremely reasonable for many users, even power users--to live in an AUR-less world, or to use so few AUR packages that the guidance of "read what you're installing, doofus" is manageable and not onerous.

If you want something from the AUR, just don't be lazy, read the pkgbuild.
I was not affected
Is there another distro that has an equivalent of the AUR with handling you think is preferable?
AUR is fast and loose and doesn't do much "handling" by design, so it's hard to find any equivalent repo. But there's always a tradeoff between fresh (nixpkgs unstable, might be the closest) and tested (Debian).
AUR isn't just the testing repo of Arch; it's explicitly just an open spot where anybody can put up "here's a PKGBUILD for folks". I don't see how it's like either the Nix or Debian examples.
Well, Nix has NUR which is a direct equivalent but it's not nearly as broadly used and I assume "here's a PKGBUILD for folks" is already too permissive for you if you're asking.

There's no maintainer vetting process in nixpkgs as far as I know, anyone can own a bunch of packages. There are quality standards and it's not "here's a bunch of nix code for folks" but it's the next possible thing in the line after that.

It seems like you may have mistakenly inferred that I have issues with the AUR?

I don't; I use Arch on 100% of my personal servers, have done so for something approaching 20 years, and don't see myself changing.

But I treat the AUR for what it is: a place where anybody can say "here's a PKGBUILD for folks" and it's on me to evaluate it on its merits.

I was legitimately asking the person upthread what other distro they felt had a better model for this kind of sharing, because they seemed to think this was a reason for Arch users to jump ship and I was curious what they thought would be the elements of a better system.

The NUR was sort of convenient before flakes were a thing, but now that there's a really common convention for sharing Nix code few use it. I bet most people who came across Nix in the last 4 years have never even heard of it.
No because there’s no way to handle an open submission repository at all. It’s impossible by design since anyone can submit packages to it.

I would never use anything equivalent to AUR on any distro due to the obvious security implications. That’s been my position for as long as I have known about Arch. I never understood Arch users using the AUR as a selling point for the distro.

Then again I live in the opposite end of the spectrum where I run only Debian Stable on my Linux desktop as well as my servers, where packages make it through Sid and Testing before getting to Stable and I can be relatively sure any supply chain attacks have been caught by then (like xz for example which was caught before it left Sid).

For those unfamiliar with Debian, Sid is basically a rolling release similar to using Arch with the official repositories (which is already dangerous without even touching the AUR), then packages move to Testing, then later eventually make it to Stable.

The AUR is, in my opinion, a pretty convenient selling point if you use any esoteric software.

It’s basically like a crowdsourced set of people’s tips and tricks for installing stuff on Arch, all written in the format Arch uses for packages.

Similar to how I’d not blindly take code from an AI and whack it into production, I wouldn’t blindly take an AUR PKGBUILD and execute it. But it’s nice to have a place to go see “huh, I wonder if anybody has shared their approach so I can borrow from it”.

That’s a perspective on the AUR that I hadn’t really seen before from Arch advocates, in my (admittedly hazy memory) it’s usually mentioned in the sense of “Arch is great because you always get the latest packages in the official repos and basically anything you possibly need you can just install from the AUR”. If you’re actually using it just as a reference guide essentially then it seems like there’s some value there.

However, I’ll push back a bit from my perspective as a Debian Stable user. I would consider even the official Arch repositories to be dangerous just like I consider Debian Sid’s repos to be dangerous (packages are too new and not sufficiently vetted). Then regarding installing packages not available in the main Debian repos, I’ve never really had any issues installing them either as there is always either an official developer run apt repo I can add, or an official deb package, or it just builds directly from official source without tweaks. So I’ve honestly never felt like I was missing “a crowdsourced set of people’s tips and tricks for installing stuff” on Debian as I’ve just never needed one.

I do realize that installing the latest packages directly from a developer’s repo or latest deb package or source is as dangerous as the Debian Sid or Arch official repos for the same reason (too new, not vetted), but the difference is those are only a tiny portion of the packages installed on my system (like a percent of a percent, maybe a half dozen packages out of hundreds). If I ran Sid or Arch, it would be 100% of the packages on my system which is an attack surface orders of magnitude larger.

EDIT: It did just occur to me after posting this reply that I use Homebrew pretty extensively as a package manager on macOS and its official repos are equivalent to Sid/Arch official repos, so I may be a bit of a hypocrite here :P

There are also dangers of being on older versions in Debian that rely on maintainers identifying and correctly back porting critical changes.

Fwiw the Arch docs are pretty clear that the AUR is a Wild West and that you should be vetting anything you find there before you run it.

Opensuse OBS. Tiny bit better because the build environment doesn't allow a network and binaries are not allowed as far as I know. Fedora has a similar thing COPR. Both of these support building packages for other distros as well as appimage, flatpak etc.

With opensuse official packages also use the same infrastructure. It is actually quite fascinating and powerful. (I know a lot less about COPR but I would imagine it would be equally as good. Wezterm switched to that for its packages)

Gentoo

But let's hope we get this solved, like peer review model, vouch, or something

It is very good to be able to find build/install files for everything

Gentoo's model appears to be basically the same? Like the AUR, anybody can submit basically anything they want. The requirements amount to containing valid packages, having a bugzilla account, and putting your package definitions in VCS somewhere.
In overlays that need to be explicitly enabled. Not as convenient as yay yolo.

We can also add npm to package.mask.

Yay isn’t in the official arch repos? The only way you get stuff from the AUR is by explicitly pulling down to repo and building with makepkg or explicitly finding and installing an AUR “helper”.
Windows where you just download .exe and .msi files from random websites. Not a Linux distro, but the closest security model I can think of.
You think that users having to find and download software from the Internet at large is both similar to the AUR model and has preferable handling of these issues?

Can you elaborate?

To me, installing software from the AUR sounds a lot like downloading Windows software from .info sites and torrents. It's mostly fine, but it's not exactly a surprise when things go wrong.
SlackBuilds.org is pretty sensible.
I do. I just keep reading the diffs on the PLGBUILDs.
I do, I'm just choosy about aur packages I use
I still do, I just don't touch AURs anymore.