• LemmyHead@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would argue that it’s their own fault then. Laziness is not a valid excuse to put yourself so much at risk. If you start doing it consistently, it becomes a habit and won’t take much effort. Of course, the familiarity with PKBUILD syntax has a learning curve

    But a peer-reviewing system would be a better approach in AUR. Weird that it’s not been implemented yet.

    • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess it can be assumed that a good number of people read the PKGBUILDs, so at some point malware would be found. A peer-reviewing system would give people a false sense of security, since the AUR is a user repository, where breakage should be expected (compared to the official repos).

      • LemmyHead@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How would peer reviewing in a user repo be more a sense of false security compared to official repos? I don’t know any of the arch maintainers, so for me it’s also pure trust they don’t do shady stuff.

        Peer reviewing would not be failproof for sure, but at least it would give more security than not reviewing the pkbuilds, and especially to those that aren’t too familiar with them

        • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re right, a peer-review system would be a net positive. Should updates be reviewed before publishing? This means updates take longer to arrive.