Archers, settle this. Which is the superior AUR package manager, yaourt or pacaur? I prefer yaourt myself...

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.

Other urls found in this thread:

wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_helpers#Comparison_table
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Why not pacman?

it's not an arch user repo AUR, so it doesn't have the user made packages in the same way

Pacman doesn't natively support the AUR, nor will it ever. That's why the AUR managers exist.

>pacman
>AUR
decide

I use yaourt
But I have never used anything else so I cant recommend one over the other

I second this

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

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.

Or you can just use a proper distro like Ubuntu where PPAs are handled seamlessly with the same apt command.

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.

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.

>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

so, yaourt is obsolete?

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

secure: no
see

I use packer
But I barely use AUR, aonIm not sure of the failure rate

i dont use a helper. I just makepkg -sri

>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

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

You don't fucking need one. Use cower to searc/download pkgbuilds and check for updates, makepkg to install.

I have over 300 confirmed Arch installations and I recommend Yaourt.

> 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.

I use git clone and makepkg. I don't know why you would need a program to automate that for you

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.

you dont have to pass in --aur to yaourt.
you can do -Syua to update everything including aur packages.

>-sri
>not superior -sci

makepkg

Pacman....
As long as it's operated via Octopi, and connected to the Manjaro repository.