3 ms·
Arch's official package manager is `pacman`. The official arch repos are tiny though, so you frequently need to interact with the AUR (which are just user submi
by xiaomai 6y ago
Arch's official package manager is `pacman`. The official arch repos are tiny though, so you frequently need to interact with the AUR (which are just user submitted packages (they need to be built by the installer unlike the official repos)). I think the AUR clients are all unofficial, so I guess it makes sense that people would become disinterested in them, but I agree for such a core part of the arch experience it sucks.
- saghm 6y ago> The official arch repos are tiny though Interesting, having used Arch for several years now after previously having used Ubuntu and Fedora, this isn't my impression at all. In particular, there are a lot of nonfree things that are in the core Arch repos that Ubuntu and Fedora don't tend to include. I tended to need things that weren't in the repos at least as often on Ubuntu as I do on Arch, but had to use either third-party PPAs or compile from source to get them.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoYes. In my experience, 95% of what I needed was in the official repos, and the rest in AUR. Objectively speaking, Arch has ~60K official packages, which is more than Debian and Ubuntu at ~50K each. I don't think many distros even have more packages than Arch. The official repos aren't tiny at all.
- saghm 6y agoAnd that's not even counting the fact that Debian/Ubuntu like to split the headers for libraries into separate packages from the libraries themselves! Arch doesn't tend to do that (other than the kernel headers)