5 ms·

AUR issues are not arch issues "AUR packages are user-produced content. These PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use

AUR issues are not arch issues "AUR packages are user-produced content. These PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk." Usually just rebuilding a AUR package will fix most issues.

dijit 1y ago
I would say it's fair, but then it leads to an interesting problem that could happen. Build a tiny core, ask the community to extend: never be liable for any issue because important packages that are essentially required aren't part of the core and thus any criticism is invalid. Not saying that's happening here, but it could happen by this definition. But, ok, there are more issues anyway, for example it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys have rotated and someone has already packaged an update to something with the new key. That is definitely base.
- akimbostrawman 1y ago
  Arch isn't liable regardless. It's a community driven project run by volunteers without contracts. >it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys "Since 2022-07-29, the archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync.service and the associated systemd timer have been created and enabled by default" https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgrade_system_regularly https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgr...
  - dijit 1y ago
    Listen, dude, this isn’t litigation. The shit is broken sometimes, it’s ok, but we are here to be intellectually curious and have a discussion. Lying to people about how broken it can be to update in reality is the opposite of that. We aren’t here to pull down arch or the community; just here to spit facts.
    - akimbostrawman 1y ago
      I disagree that having to update a package which is also now a automatic service qualifies as broken. Sure there are issues but they are usually either self induced e.g. AUR, easily fixable e.g. keyring update or broadcasted publicly with a fix e.g. archnews. At the end of the day arch is firmly a do it yourself distro where some user intervention is expected.
      - dijit 1y ago
        Right so, > I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues Is an anecdote that is worthy of being attacked with my own, given the context that people might come away thinking that Arch updates do not break their system.. right?
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Right, just make sure that anecdote actually applies.
majkinetor 1y ago
Yeah, arch is basically unusable without AUR, so that is semantic difference without grounding in reality. Many people use Arch becuase of its package manager.
- akimbostrawman 1y ago
  That is maybe how you feel but it obviously works just fine without it otherwise it would not be explicitly separated. I do not have more than a handful AUR packages none of which are essential or without alternative. >Many people use Arch because of its package manager True pacman is great but that has nothing to do with the AUR.

dijit 1y ago

I would say it's fair, but then it leads to an interesting problem that could happen. Build a tiny core, ask the community to extend: never be liable for any issue because important packages that are essentially required aren't part of the core and thus any criticism is invalid. Not saying that's happening here, but it could happen by this definition. But, ok, there are more issues anyway, for example it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys have rotated and someone has already packaged an update to something with the new key. That is definitely base.

akimbostrawman 1y ago
Arch isn't liable regardless. It's a community driven project run by volunteers without contracts. >it's pretty common that you have to update archlinux-keychain before an upgrade can succeed because the signing keys "Since 2022-07-29, the archlinux-keyring-wkd-sync.service and the associated systemd timer have been created and enabled by default" https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgrade_system_regularly https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman/Package_signing#Upgr...
- dijit 1y ago
  Listen, dude, this isn’t litigation. The shit is broken sometimes, it’s ok, but we are here to be intellectually curious and have a discussion. Lying to people about how broken it can be to update in reality is the opposite of that. We aren’t here to pull down arch or the community; just here to spit facts.
  - akimbostrawman 1y ago
    I disagree that having to update a package which is also now a automatic service qualifies as broken. Sure there are issues but they are usually either self induced e.g. AUR, easily fixable e.g. keyring update or broadcasted publicly with a fix e.g. archnews. At the end of the day arch is firmly a do it yourself distro where some user intervention is expected.
    - dijit 1y ago
      Right so, > I've also been using Linux for years (Arch, btw) and never had an update break my install or cause issues Is an anecdote that is worthy of being attacked with my own, given the context that people might come away thinking that Arch updates do not break their system.. right?
      - akimbostrawman 1y ago
        Right, just make sure that anecdote actually applies.

majkinetor 1y ago

Yeah, arch is basically unusable without AUR, so that is semantic difference without grounding in reality. Many people use Arch becuase of its package manager.

akimbostrawman 1y ago
That is maybe how you feel but it obviously works just fine without it otherwise it would not be explicitly separated. I do not have more than a handful AUR packages none of which are essential or without alternative. >Many people use Arch because of its package manager True pacman is great but that has nothing to do with the AUR.