• Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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.