aur VS yay

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

yay is a robust and user-friendly AUR (Arch User Repository) helper for Arch Linux and Arch-based distributions written in Go.

paru has better defaults and --chroot, whereas it's still an open issue for yay.

If you use AUR packages, you might want to use an AUR helper that wraps pacman, like paru or yay.

This one: https://github.com/Jguer/yay Didn't know there were others..

you can use an aur helper like yay

Yay is hopelessly broken, it pretends to rebuild stuff when, in fact, it doesn't. See: https://github.com/Jguer/yay/issues/2153