Archers, settle this. Which is the superior AUR package manager, yaourt or pacaur? I prefer yaourt myself, but the general consensus seems to be pacaur.
Why not pacman?
>>54750021
it's not an arch user repo AUR, so it doesn't have the user made packages in the same way
>>54750021
Pacman doesn't natively support the AUR, nor will it ever. That's why the AUR managers exist.
>>54750021
>pacman
>AUR
decide
I use yaourt
But I have never used anything else so I cant recommend one over the other
>>54750063
I second this
>>54750012
pacaur
one time yaourt had a bug that broke it for a while so I started using packer
then packer did the same and I started using pacaur
I prefer the latter two because they're not bloated. yaourt tries to swallow all of pacman's functionality, those other two almost exclusively do AUR stuff
>>54750012
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_helpers#Comparison_table
bauerbill
I love how even in a single thread, the community seems to be evenly split. Two supporting yaourt, and two for pacaur.
>>54750012
Or you can just use a proper distro like Ubuntu where PPAs are handled seamlessly with the same apt command.
>>54750242
Where you have to add PPAs for every little thing, and everyone seems to have everything their own? No thanks, I'd rather stuck to the singular AUR that all of the helpers access.
>>54750012
I've always used you're if only because it's the most talked about, but I've been looking into switching to pacaur because of the good things people say about it. Might make a test VM to check it out later.
>>54750307
>every little thing
No you don't.
>everyone seems to have everything their own?
You haven't actually used Ubuntu, have you? Upstream provides official PPAs.
PKGBUILD
>>54750146
so, yaourt is obsolete?
>>54750012
I use yaourt because it's the only one i've ever used and I see no reason to switch when it fulfills my needs correctly and sufficiently.
how do I into GUI package manager
>>54750611
secure: no
see >>54750146
I use packer
But I barely use AUR, aonIm not sure of the failure rate
>>54750012
i dont use a helper. I just makepkg -sri
>>54750333
>Upstream provides official PPAs
O rly?
>oracle java
>cinnamon
>bspwm
>i3
>gimp
And I'm sure all the packages in your repository are the latest versions too, right?
Get out of here with your bullshit
>>54750553
I don't think so, it all comes to preference.
I've used yaourt when I first installed arch, then learnt more about installing the packages manually, then I installed pacaur as a backup.
>makepkg -cirs masterrace
>>54750012
You don't fucking need one. Use cower to searc/download pkgbuilds and check for updates, makepkg to install.
>>54750012
I have over 300 confirmed Arch installations and I recommend Yaourt.
>>54751071
> official PPAs
> official Personal Package Archives
> official personal
ok then. Do you know what they call PPAs that become official? The package archive.
I used to use yaourt, but I prefer pacaur now -- but in reality there's not that much difference to the end-user.
I like that pacaur has cleaner output, I don't have to pass in --aur for it to automatically check for AUR updates and then it seems to prompt me less for shit. I also really like that it keeps a semi-permanent cache in ~/.cache and is able to automatically update git repositories for -git packages, instead of having to re-clone them. This also allows to rebuild only the parts that are needed and is for bigger packages much faster.
>>54750012
I use git clone and makepkg. I don't know why you would need a program to automate that for you
>>54750012
technically pacaur is more rubust in concept than yaourt and more secure.
in reality pacaur often fails to properly pull dependancies from either the offical repos or the aur.
so i id recommend yaourt.
atleast it works properly.
>>54752659
you dont have to pass in --aur to yaourt.
you can do -Syua to update everything including aur packages.
>>54751053
>-sri
>not superior -sci
>>54750012
makepkg
>>54750012
Pacman....
As long as it's operated via Octopi, and connected to the Manjaro repository.
