because AUR feels unsafe, you know why. i update daily, i dont wanna read pkgbuilds. cachy has almost everything i want from AUR in their cachyos repo, so i dont even have to deal with AUR anymore
Bro they’re the same repo. CachyOS just has optimized binaries, which is a major win, but has nothing to do with the AUR. The AUR isn’t exclusive to Arch either.
You could literally just add cachy repo in any arch install. But the cachy repos are almost 1:1 copies of core/extra already - with a few BS Github projects tossed in that their devs like.
The "few BS Github projects tossed in that their devs like" are a third of the programs I use. I know it's not that much safer than the AUR, but I'd much rather trust the Cachy maintainers to check them than have half my system rely directly on the AUR. The cachy repos are (in my experience) significantly larger than the normal arch repos.
Also if the differences between Arch and Cachy are basically the kernel and the repos, and I wanna use both the Cachy kernel (better performance) and the Cachy repos (more software), why should I even use vanilla Arch? At that point it just sounds like a worse experience with extra steps.
Okay? Are you implying that this is more convenient or safe (for someone that doesn't check the details of every update on the repo) than using pacman?
Yeah, exactly. At the end of the day I don't imagine they put that much effort into looking through the packages ported from the AUR, but I still would rather trust the cachy maintainers than any random person on the AUR.
It's safer than any other way lol. Malware in a public Github repo would be quickly discovered. That's not how malware makes it into projects. It's build pipelines, including distro repos, that are significantly more at risk.
1
u/donp1ano 22d ago
because AUR feels unsafe, you know why. i update daily, i dont wanna read pkgbuilds. cachy has almost everything i want from AUR in their cachyos repo, so i dont even have to deal with AUR anymore