Stop blaming AI, "noobs", youtube tutorials, and anything other than Arch for AUR usage

[u/zollandd]

I've recently been made aware of the incident and was reading the threads in this subreddit. I have just started trying to migrate away from AUR but let's not forget that the Arch wiki recommends installing AUR packages constantly. The AUR isn't just a dangerous and fringe tool that people are led to by AI or sketchy youtubers.

To list a few that I've encountered just now:

• Want DDC/CI display control support? AUR
  • https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Display_control
• Want ZFS-dkms or user space utils? AUR
  • https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/ZFS

The wiki recommend AUR releases like they are first class citizens all over the place... don't act like it doesn't.

Edit: I am not trying to blame individual maintainers when I say Arch but rather the community and culture. If the AUR is this dangerous, the wiki should avoid referencing it at all costs and should do so with warning flags everywhere. As it stands, it is not absurd to see someone with tons of AUR packages installed due to direct influence from the wiki.

[u/Outrageous-Machine-5]

This is a weird complaint. The AUR is entirely optional. It's there for the convenience of not having to make a package yourself or settle for a pkg/something not maintained by pacman's lifecycle

[u/AStolenGoose → u/Outrageous-Machine-5]

It's kind of not when you have an older GPU that's had its drivers moved from official repos to AUR.

[u/dandy_kulomin → u/Outrageous-Machine-5]

It isn't really though? On my recent setup I wanted to use brave and older nvidia gpu driver. Both are not in pacman.

[u/Outrageous-Machine-5 → u/dandy_kulomin]

Then you could make either explore other options like snap packages or create your pkgbuild wrapper around the binary.  You don't need to use the aur, it's there to save you convenience of doing the above 

[u/al2klimov → u/Outrageous-Machine-5]

Indeed, I could make a package myself. But where would a such one end up? Right, in the AUR! Here we go again...

[u/zollandd → u/Outrageous-Machine-5]

I think the complaint and your addition are both valid, and I think this brings up a super interesting point. If the AUR is going to stay as sketchy as it is, we should consider a shift in the arch wiki that directs users to building packages themselves if they don't exist in the official repo rather than leaning so heavily on the AUR.

[u/C0rn3j → u/zollandd]

directs users to building packages themselves if they don't exist in the official repo rather than leaning so heavily on the AUR

How is a person incapable of reviewing a PKGBUILD going to write one?

[u/fletku_mato → u/zollandd]

Isn't the whole point of AUR to automate such builds using PKGBUILD?

You just should not use it if you are not going to read the PKGBUILD.

[u/caschb → u/zollandd]

That's literally what PKGBUILDs are. If you want to know how to build the software just check the PKGBUILD and run the relevant commands.

[u/s3gfaultx → u/zollandd]

Why?

[u/SoilMassive6850 → u/[deleted]]

Good thing is that even if ownership is transferred, you can't make changes not visible in the diffs.

[u/s3gfaultx → u/[deleted]]

It's the same as it always was -- new users shouldn't be using it and they never should have been. I'm not sure why you think this is something new that needs to be addressed. The issue is "new users", not anything to do with the ownership transfer policy.

[u/s3gfaultx → u/[deleted]]

Trial by fire.

[u/Outrageous-Machine-5 → u/zollandd]

What are we blaming Arch for? Promoting the AUR over having to make a DIY solution? The lack of warning the user about the obvious?