this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
224 points (99.6% liked)

Linux

13955 readers
484 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Bananskal@nord.pub 1 points 5 hours ago

the diff is noise in the potentially big update log. the point of doing it manually is forcing you to take your time and verify stuff one by one.

I guess it depends on your discipline. If I'm already so inclined that I'd go to the lengths of forcing myself to check each package "manually", I'm also going to be so disciplined to check each diff when paru pauses the upgrade process for me to do so. It's the same thing for me.

also pkgbuild is just one place, seeing the hash changed means nothing if you don't check what that archive contains, or seeing the install steps don't change mean very little when the installer invokes other scripts anyway

Yup, and as I said, that's where I draw the line with my trust and my threat level. I don't have a lot of important data.

i understand that you aren't going to vet the source itself, but at that point you are exposing yourself to this kind of malware without mitigation. the aur is unsafe by design (fast way to publish a package without any involvement from anyone else) and should be avoided whenever possible. im not an arch hater, i too run arch

Yup, I'm aware of the risks I'm taking. ๐Ÿ™‚ That's the important part to me. I really don't have time to vet sources with two small kids and a full-time job, and hobbies and exercise every week. It's impossible, and a sacrifice I'm willing and forced to make if I want some life balance. Quite a simple choice.