Post #4282193
2026-07-31 15:05 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2026-07-31 15:38
Adoption of unmaintained packages to maintain them is not a mistake. The problem is the current implementation, not the idea behind it. It’s like saying the AUR is a mistake, because some people do malicious stuff. They should find a better solution, like adoption shouldn’t be granted to everyone without question, especially new accounts who didn’t maintain anything before. Mass adoption shouldn’t be granted automatically (limit rate), in example 1 package adoption per day and if someone wants more, admins or moderators need to approve. And updates of newly adopted packages should wait a day. Also the AUR helpers should do a better job. Always ask if a new adopted package should be updated and give a warning the maintainer changed.
-
@lemmyvore@feddit.nl 2026-07-31 20:14
Remove unmaintained packages and block the name for several months. Alright, but that would mean most of AUR. Have a look at the package statistics box on the AUR homepage. Most packages fall under that definition in one way or another. The vast majority of the AUR is package some random person added once then never bothered with ever again. Frankly I’m surprised that the AUR has survived for so long in its current form, for what is basically a shell script distribution system with zero supervision and zero safety guards.
-
@chortle_tortle@mander.xyz 2026-08-03 17:36
From the mailing list thread: For the record, those are all new packages (not orphaned packages being adopted). I assume more will come, we’ll clean those as soon as possible. In the mean time stay vigilant, probably refrain from installing freshly pushed new packages from the AUR for now. So wasn’t adoption in this case. Looks like instead they submitted a bunch of git/bin versions of existing packages.