aurutils VS pkgstats.archlinux.de

Currently I use aurutils, so that created packages are stored in an extra repository on the respective machine and can be installed through it.

I currently use aurutils.

If I am not mistaken officially maintained packages follow the same initial process as AUR packages. You can read the wiki on Creating packages. But official packages are tested (there is a testing repository with the newest packages) where as the AUR package expects users to do the build and testing themselves, at their own risk in other words. With the helpers like glorious aurutils the process of keeping up-to-date dozens of packages (if you happen to be in a such a use case) with many dependencies is quite easy.

You could use https://github.com/AladW/aurutils to create your own pacman repository on this USB drive. On your powerful PC you build the packages and they are placed in the repository on the USB drive. Then on your other machine you add the repository and install any AUR packages that you added to the repository from there. Dependency resolution would be handled by pacman itself just like for the normal repositories.

aurutils

Check out aurutils, it is a collection of scripts that helps to streamline the process of maintaining a custom-repo for you aur packages. It takes a little to set everything up in the beginning (but it is less work then OPs method). After the initial setup everything just works.

I have yay installed but I've also setup aurutils on my server that automatically builds a list of packages to a pacman repo every day so I can just update them with my other pacman packages. Saves time compiling them during updates and lets me upgrade the same packages on my desktop and laptop without having to needlessly build them twice.

You can install pkgstats.

According to the stats from pkgstats sway is the most used window manager in archlinux (see here). At least from the among the people submitting data to pkgstats. These stats probably look very differently for other distros. What do you think?

Thanks, I was just about to post that myself. On the pkgstats website you can find some statistics (they don't give absolute numbers, but I think you can easily get those with the API).

That's like saying that windows has high uptake solely because it's not customizable. GNOME is dominant because it comes preinstalled with Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. In every scenario where the user is expected to have some understanding of what is running on their machine, Plasma often beats GNOME by an incredibly wide margin(see: https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/). Plasma's issue isn't that it's customizable, it's issue is that distros and the plasma devs frequently include asinine defaults for no reason.

popcon for ARCH = https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/

The config for the "fun" page can be found at: https://github.com/archlinux-de/pkgstats.archlinux.de/blob/master/app/src/config/fun.json