Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

jebez · 2025-02-22 09:53:44

Why build oneself an AUR package_name-version-architecture.pkg.tar.zst instead of directly download it or install it by pacman?

E.g. following https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_U … g_packages https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/filezilla-server gaves me filezilla-server-1.9.4-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.zst (after several minutes...), why not this file directly downloadable?
I can do it on my Google Drive...

Or better: why not [aur] etc in /etc/pacman.conf , AUR packages directly installable by pacman?

I'm suprised I'm the 1st to ask this question.

Last edited by jebez (2025-02-23 12:55:51)

Lone_Wolf · 2025-02-22 11:05:12

Are you interested in why people upload/maintain an aur package or the reason why aur packages are provided as recipes to build stuff yourself instead of installable binaries ?

The thread title suggests the first question, but your opening post suggests the second.

shulamy · 2025-02-22 12:10:28

you create PKGBUILD for yourself and aur package for others that likes what's in it

ezik

Head_on_a_Stick · 2025-02-22 12:26:33

jebez wrote:

why not this file directly downloadable?

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/s … epository/

Be sure to read those PKGBUILDs before installing.

jebez · 2025-02-22 15:00:07

Seems confusion in my 1st post, I'm french sorry, I edited, the 2nd Lone_Wolf.

So because of a potential malware in an AUR package_name-version-architecture.pkg.tar.zst ? In my filezilla-server-1.9.4-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.zst ? But same question for a regular repo, e.g. extra... Someone can just check...

Last edited by jebez (2025-02-22 15:02:19)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2025-02-22 15:14:03

The user checks by reading the PKGBUILD. The developers are all busy with the repository packages. Those are checked.

jebez · 2025-02-22 15:22:56

E.g. I'm noob in programming, so I'll learn C++ etc to check a potential malware? I ask ChatGPT? Mmmm...

Just also add [aur] etc in /etc/pacman.conf, so the user has the choice to install or build...

seth · 2025-02-22 15:44:38

https://deepl.com/ speaks english and french.
There're 3rd party repos that offer pre-built AUR packages, see eg. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unoffi … haotic-aur

You've to understand that the AUR is the wild west, almost everybody can add stuff there, the PKGBUILDs and sources are largely unvetted and everyone is on their own.
See it as inspiration for your own efforts to extend the system beyond the official repos, NOT as an existing extension of them.
Blurring the lines between the repos and the AUR is the main sin of pacman wrapping AUR helpers for exactly that reason.

I'm suprised I'm the 1st to ask this question.

Me to. Mostly because you aren't.
Everyone who simply skipped RTFW asks that…

jebez · 2025-02-22 16:24:16

Better than Google Translate?

Interesting your link, it's my [aur] suggestion but there isn't FileZilla Server...

Now I googled "why build oneself AUR package", indeed I only found https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=281104, https://bbs.archlinux.org/search.php gaves nothing...

Last edited by jebez (2025-02-22 17:09:14)

seth · 2025-02-22 16:32:01

Better than Google Translate?

*Much* better.

Now I googled "gibberish"

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are … t+prebuilt

Interesting your link, it's my [aur] suggestion but there isn't FileZilla Server...

Do you understand the implications of this being a 3rd party repo automatically packaging completely unvetted stuff from the AUR?

*You* will have to justify the trust in
1. the AUR package as before
2. in addition the 3rd-party repo

The AUR is a platform for arch users to share stuff. It is NOT part of archlinux.
Read the AUR wiki I linked.

jebez · 2025-02-22 17:40:57

https://aur.chaotic.cx/about they seem good guys, not malware creators

I requested FileZilla Server https://github.com/chaotic-aur/packages/issues/3523.

seth · 2025-02-22 20:31:55

E.g. I wanna FTP serve a partition of my PC, read-only except for a writable folder, possible with FileZilla Server but not with vsftpd.

man mount

cd /tmp
mkdir foo
mkdir bar
mkdir foo/snafu
touch foo/locked
touch foo/snafu/open
sudo mount -o ro,bind foo bar
ls bar
echo fuck > bar/locked
echo fuck > bar/snafu/open
sudo mount -o rw,bind foo/snafu bar/snafu
echo fuck > bar/snafu/open
cat foo/snafu/open

Do not post the outputs, it's for you to wrap your head around only.

jebez · 2025-02-22 21:50:01

?

@seth:
Please remember our Code of Conduct and to treat other users with respect (me too https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … #p2227100).

seth · 2025-02-22 21:54:44

The commands literally explain how to get a writeable location in a write-only mount ie do what you want filezilla to do completely generally in the filesystem
Jesuschrist.

jebez · 2025-02-22 22:14:29

Sorry see my edited https://github.com/chaotic-aur/packages/issues/3523.

seth · 2025-02-22 22:24:14

That edit doesn't seem to change anything about the task description, but just change some grammar?
You can bind-mount anything into /srv read-only and then bind-mount anything (incl. a directory inside the first mount source) into that writable.
Ie. what you want to do is possible regardless of any server protocol or implementation.

jebez · 2025-02-22 23:02:12

I understand your technique, but I prefer the FTP server to take care of it rather than fiddle with mount.

Last edited by jebez (2025-02-22 23:05:56)

seth · 2025-02-23 08:53:33

Two fstab lines are hardly "fiddling", also there's https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/filezilla-server-bin a precompiled AUR package for filezilla anyway?
Have you considered https://packages.ubuntu.com/oracular/filezilla? Maybe archlinux isn't for you.

jebez · 2025-02-23 11:26:30

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/filezilla-server-bin seems the translation from FileZilla_Server_1.9.4_x86_64-linux-gnu.deb https://filezilla-project.org/download.php?type=server to filezilla-server-1.9.4-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.zst, I prefer https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/filezilla-server.

seth wrote:

Have you considered https://packages.ubuntu.com/oracular/filezilla? Maybe archlinux isn't for you.

What the duck? I've AdBlock on Falkon web browser but you... See https://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php … 39#p815939. Ubuntu, based on Debian, just wanna make money with free & open source https://ubuntu.com/pricing/pro.

Last edited by jebez (2025-02-23 12:19:16)

Lone_Wolf · 2025-02-23 12:00:54

jebez commented on 2025-02-22 09:36 (UTC)

It is now 11:55:06 UTC on Sunday, 23 February 2025 , so the aur maintainer has had just under 26 hours to respond . Please have some patience.

Moderator Note :
Please edit the thread title to reflect the real question.

jebez · 2025-02-23 12:21:46

No, it's the real question, FileZilla Server is just an example.

Lone_Wolf · 2025-02-23 12:45:50

I wasn't referring to filezilla, but the confusion between the title and your opening post (thanks for editing that) .

Something like 'Why do aur packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries ?' would be better.

seth · 2025-02-23 15:24:26

The duck implied that you're apparently more interested in a distro presetting and doing everything around you - ubuntu is just a popular example for that.
The binary AUR package ships the binary provided by upstream, yes.
If you want to build the sources yourself, wtf is this thread about?

jebez · 2025-02-23 16:10:32

I'm interested by the technically best distro: Arch Linux.

I ideally wanna install, not build (anyway I'm not going to check a potential malware in the source code of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/filezilla-server), your link https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unoffi … haotic-aur is the answer.

Arch Linux

#1 2025-02-22 09:53:44

Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#2 2025-02-22 11:05:12

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#3 2025-02-22 12:10:28

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#4 2025-02-22 12:26:33

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#5 2025-02-22 15:00:07

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#6 2025-02-22 15:14:03

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#7 2025-02-22 15:22:56

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#8 2025-02-22 15:44:38

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#9 2025-02-22 16:24:16

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#10 2025-02-22 16:32:01

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#11 2025-02-22 17:40:57

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#12 2025-02-22 20:31:55

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#13 2025-02-22 21:50:01

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#14 2025-02-22 21:54:44

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#15 2025-02-22 22:14:29

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#16 2025-02-22 22:24:14

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#17 2025-02-22 23:02:12

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#18 2025-02-23 08:53:33

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#19 2025-02-23 11:26:30

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#20 2025-02-23 12:00:54

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#21 2025-02-23 12:21:46

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#22 2025-02-23 12:45:50

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#23 2025-02-23 15:24:26

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

#24 2025-02-23 16:10:32

Re: Why do AUR packages not provide *.pkg.tar.zst binaries?

Board footer