aur VS lens

I haven't used aura in a while, but as far as I understand the command sudo aura -Au --devel will only update packages that need updates based on if there are new commits upstream. As of aura 3.0.0 the git clones are kept in /var/cache/aura/vcs and when aura checks if the package needs an update it just does a pull on the repo and checks if the version is newer, so you will only see packages listed that require an update. You can add the --force flag to rebuild all of them, but that will generally do a lot of unnecessary work rebuilding packages with no updates upstream.

Yes, you need to use the CLI to run that, but it's trivial to do so and a real package management system brings many advantages over exe installers. The AUR, inspired by BSD's Ports, is one of the major advantages of Arch. It's very rare to find a package that isn't supported.

[1] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/radarr

[2] - https://github.com/fosskers/aura

Same here. Checked the github page and they're aware of it. Should be fixed soon. In the mean time I've been using aura. It's pretty great, should be more popular imo.

That's why I use aura

I found the discussion of the reasoning interesting: https://github.com/fosskers/aura/discussions/657

I've really enjoyed this one: https://github.com/fosskers/aura

They are in fact well structured and not random at all. Take a look at this:

https://github.com/ekmett/lens/wiki/Operators

A composition of functional operations over Kmett style lenses. Here's the original Haskell implementation, here's usage in JS via Ramda

The documentation of lenses is geared towards people know what lenses are. Of course this single fragment of documentation doesn't make sense if you don't know what lenses are. If you want to understand what lenses are the package links to a helpful wiki and tutorial: https://github.com/ekmett/lens/wiki/Overview

All within reach within seconds of discovering the function.