This is a good thing, because the warning about checking everything you download from the AUR, which has always existed, is now actually "enforced". People respond to consequences.
A bunch of common yay commands also return back the last updated time of a package thanks to https://github.com/Jguer/yay/pull/2846.
I do not think this something you can escape by switching distro.
Namespacing is the solution, and as mentioned in the article some ditros do indeed have namespaced user repos, like Fedora's Copr. The trust model of a flat namespace user repo is completely broken when the maintaining user can change at any moment.
An Arch maintainer that I personally know once admitted that he rarely review upstream changes when bumping package versions. He only does that when the build breaks.
I can't blame him for what he did, since it's not reasonable to ask package maintainers to spend all their time on those stuff, especially in this "Age of AI" where more and more software are being aggressively refactored (or rather rewritten) and added more features.
What we can do is choosing a stable distro (like Debian) where packages are more thoroughly reviewed, and apply security practices (such as TOTP, sandboxing browsers and video players, etc.) even though they cause inconvenience.
Cool story bro. Assuming that's common, I have trouble understanding why Arch (non-AUR) is any more at risk than Debian--besides the latter being more popular and having more users/incidental testers, which is a real benefit if that's your goal, but has its own drawbacks (like older and known-vulnerable packages lingering for longer before updated releases are made available).
> it's not reasonable to ask package maintainers to spend all their time on those stuff, especially in this "Age of AI"
Aren't Debian and friends similarly at risk of this as well, then?
> security practices (such as TOTP, sandboxing browsers and video players, etc.)
I'm not sure if those are more or less prevalent on Arch; I know that many IDEs and GUI programs I've installed on Arch ran by default in Flatpaks or similar, and Debian/Ubuntu like Snaps, but I'm honestly not familiar with whether those ecosystems have significant and/or equivalent penetration in different distros.
There's also plenty projects that silently fix security bugs without issuing a CVE or even labelling them. So now the maintainer of that packages has to monitor the commit logs, figure out if a particular bug fix has security implications and then backport it to the older version which is becoming harder and harder over time.
Unless you have a massive team or a big enough army of volunteers, the LTS model is becoming less and less viable over time, you are often safer on rolling release or close to it (something like Fedora's pace is good).
There's no silver bullets here.
Where are you drawing your conviction that non-rolling-release distro maintainers are doing a more thorough review of upstream changes?
> such as TOTP
What?
Mitigation Tool: https://github.com/cookiengineer/antimiasma
Blog Post with details: https://cookie.engineer/weblog/articles/malware-insights-mia...
The AUR is, as many others have pointed out, a deliberately un-vetted pile of random Git repos. Arch deliberately doesn't even ship with a default one-click installer for AUR packages; their published guidance is "git clone this stuff from wherever it's hosted and build it at your own risk". Plenty of third-party, non-Arch-blessed tools turn that into a one-click process, but it's not "part" of Arch itself--at least not any more than, like, curl | bash or directions on how to add rando websites to /etc/apt/sources.list.d is part of Debian and friends.
I've used Arch as a daily driver for years. At peak, I've had five (5) total packages, with no transitives, installed from the AUR. Today I have one: sublime-text-4. It's perfectly possible--and extremely reasonable for many users, even power users--to live in an AUR-less world, or to use so few AUR packages that the guidance of "read what you're installing, doofus" is manageable and not onerous.
There's no maintainer vetting process in nixpkgs as far as I know, anyone can own a bunch of packages. There are quality standards and it's not "here's a bunch of nix code for folks" but it's the next possible thing in the line after that.
I don't; I use Arch on 100% of my personal servers, have done so for something approaching 20 years, and don't see myself changing.
But I treat the AUR for what it is: a place where anybody can say "here's a PKGBUILD for folks" and it's on me to evaluate it on its merits.
I was legitimately asking the person upthread what other distro they felt had a better model for this kind of sharing, because they seemed to think this was a reason for Arch users to jump ship and I was curious what they thought would be the elements of a better system.
But let's hope we get this solved, like peer review model, vouch, or something
It is very good to be able to find build/install files for everything
Then set it in a loop on all the packages for a particular system, I don't have experience in package maintenance and would be curious what kind of issues would come up.