Thank you for explaining the differences. I’ve had several heated arguments with several users on this community where they tried to compare the AUR with these other solutions you mentioned. There’s a big difference between them. Namely regarding who controls the user repos. You explained the differences very well and I hope others understand better now just how AUR is dangerous and how this is negatively affecting the reputation of Arch and Linux in general with the wider public.
It really should be shut down for Arch’s sake. If people want to provide a package with certain modifications, just let users get it off your git repo and build it themselves with the proper instructions. It’s not that much safer, but just enough that it should prevent this kind of widespread problem.
The more widely used packages should be moved to an official repository with review procedures. Perhaps the (quality) requirements can be lower, but these must be reviewed by trusted people.
The remaining packages should be moved to user namespaces, like the other user-package repos do. That will at least prevent (most) takeover attacks.
If people want to provide a package with certain modifications, just let users get it off your git repo and build it themselves with the proper instructions. It’s not that much safer, but just enough that it should prevent this kind of widespread problem.
A long time ago I chose openSuSE over arch because of (among other) me being concerned with the lax use of the AUR by the community.
One should just be somewhat mindful of what that thing is – it is pretty much the equivalent of clicking links on the web to download software for Windows.
I think it should be used for what it was supposed to be.
The AUR was created to organize and share new packages from the community and to help expedite popular packages’ inclusion into the extra repository.
Maybe arch should adopt something akin to open build service and openqa to more quickly grow the extra repository which then can be monitored better?
Thank you for explaining the differences. I’ve had several heated arguments with several users on this community where they tried to compare the AUR with these other solutions you mentioned. There’s a big difference between them. Namely regarding who controls the user repos. You explained the differences very well and I hope others understand better now just how AUR is dangerous and how this is negatively affecting the reputation of Arch and Linux in general with the wider public.
It really should be shut down for Arch’s sake. If people want to provide a package with certain modifications, just let users get it off your git repo and build it themselves with the proper instructions. It’s not that much safer, but just enough that it should prevent this kind of widespread problem.
I think it should really be split into two parts:
@jpv2390@discuss.tchncs.de just below your comment, quoted the Arch wiki on the original purpose of the AUR.
Source
Thanks @jpv2390@discuss.tchncs.de
annoying note - for the record I quoted this from the article, I didn’t write this.
I agree with you though, that is the exact reason I quoted that section because it clarified things for me!
That’s already the recommended path.
A long time ago I chose openSuSE over arch because of (among other) me being concerned with the lax use of the AUR by the community. One should just be somewhat mindful of what that thing is – it is pretty much the equivalent of clicking links on the web to download software for Windows. I think it should be used for what it was supposed to be.
Maybe arch should adopt something akin to open build service and openqa to more quickly grow the extra repository which then can be monitored better?