I hate to use AUR packages!

[Debian_SuperUser]

The AUR itself is really good. It offers a much wider range of packages than the default repos. But what I am sick of is mostly compiling the packages myself, and even for others who don't need compilation, there is still a lot more that goes on like compressing package or whatever like, I don't care anything about the source code, I just need the binary. I would be into compiling stuff myself, but I don't have enough compute. I just want the binaries quickly.

I am aware of chaotic aur, but it doesn't have some of the packages I need.

Take for example FlightGear. On Ubuntu, there is a snap available, or just plain files as well which I prefer a lot. On Arch, installing it is a bit complicated and disappointing actually. FG is not available in of the official repos. It is however available in the AUR. There is one which you need to compile it yourself, and HELL NAH, I ain't doing that. There is however, an appimage version of it in the AUR. I do like appimages for the containerization, but I think they have a performance (and space) penalty. So I had to install that, which again, just doesn't bring the appimage itself directly to me, but there is a lot of stuff going like compressing packages and stuff like, it is so irritating. After that, I had to install flightgear-data from the AUR, and it took so much time and so much of my CPU just compressing package and what not. It also takes a lot of space for source code or whatever that I just don't need and care about.

I have already ranted about this so much but haven't been able to come up with a solution. Arch is a much low level and fast linux distro, and I can't afford to compile each and every AUR package from source. First thing is that I still don't get why AUR packages need to be compiled. And even for the pre-compiled ones, why the hell do I need to take these extra steps? How can I skip this?

 

[CaffeineAddict]

But what I am sick of is mostly compiling the packages myself, and even for others who don't need compilation, there is still a lot more that goes on like compressing package or whatever like, I don't care anything about the source code, I just need the binary. I would be into compiling stuff myself, but I don't have enough compute. I just want the binaries quickly.

You have switched from Debian to Arch right?
If you so much dislike compiling yourself and doing all by hand maybe it's time to regret that decision and undo it

Arch is obviously everything that you do not like to do.

 

[charlie.corder]

@Debian_SuperUser
You said that "FG is not available in of the official repos."

I am running Linux Mint 21.3 and Flight Gear is in the software manager as shown by this snapshot.

Maybe LM would suit you better.
OG
TC

 

[Vimmer]

as i was discussing with someone before, the choice of distro mostly just has to do with how much you want to customize the operating system, the software, and deal with the risk of things not working immediately. Arch has a very high degree of risk and customization. Like charlie is hinting at, linux mint is very much a "works out of the box" type deal like windows and ubuntu.

It's fairly rare in computing to be compiling software yourself unless you are a programmer, but sometimes compiling is the better route to go for the sake of things working properly or for the sake of customization.

 

[Debian_SuperUser]

@charlie.corder

Didn't I state that I am running Arch? Of course Arch repos are gonna be different than Mint's. If so, even Ubuntu has FG in their official repo.

 

[Debian_SuperUser]

@CaffeineAddict @Vimmer

It looks like FG has its own Appimage binary linked on their site. There, I just click it and get it. The AUR way also just helps me get the Appimage, but just does a whole lot of other stuff and procedures, with keeping the source code of some sort along with it, which I absolutely hate.

I already installed FG from the AUR. Next time I'll directly get the Appimage.

But still though, the AUR is such a nice place because you get so many extra packages there that you wouldn't find it that straightforward on other distros. But I hate that I need to build the packages myself. Can somebody explain why I need to build them myself, and not the host also giving the compiled binary?

And for those which already are pre-compiled, makepkg still takes so many procedures instead of just getting me the Appimage. You can read the PKGBUILD of flightgear-appimage from the AUR. But does the PKGBUILD itself contain the procedures of keeping the source files and all, or is it just done by makepkg by itself? If they contain in the PKGBUILD, can I maybe modify them to not eat my CPU cycles and get me the binary directly? I just want a way to skip keeping the source code and doing some other procedures and just get me the damn binary.

Also, I have another question. Appimages are I think lightly compressed, and I always value performance. Do I extract them and run the actual binary in it? There will still be the disadvantage of having extra files and libraries, but I think that's okay.

 

[CaffeineAddict]

But I hate that I need to build the packages myself.

can I maybe modify them to not eat my CPU cycles and get me the binary directly?

I suggest at least quad core 3.6 GHz CPU, that's what I have currently and it compiles code like crazy.
CPU's don't exist to be in idle mode all the time but to do work, coolers are installed to PC's to cool CPU's down down and prevent damage, so unless your cooler is faulty you have no reasons to worry about CPU doing something.

Also, I have another question. Appimages are I think lightly compressed, and I always value performance.

I value performance too that's why I'll never use any kinds of flatpaks, app images or anything similar, just native code that's executed by CPU directly is what I care about.

DISCLAIMER: AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk.

AUR (en) - Home

aur.archlinux.org

That's another reason why I'd never use AUR packages except to build them myself.

I know this doesn't answer your questions, but if you really value performance then dump anything sandboxed and put your CPU to work.

 

[Debian_SuperUser]

I suggest at least quad core 3.6 GHz CPU, that's what I have currently and it compiles code like crazy.
CPU's don't exist to be in idle mode all the time but to do work, coolers are installed to PC's to cool CPU's down down and prevent damage, so unless your cooler is faulty you have no reasons to worry about CPU doing something.

I mean fine, I can go and compile stuff myself, but then I have less compute resources for other tasks. I want to only compile if I really have to, else skip it. And not mentioning the extra work I have to do to compile it like resolving dependencies which also bloats my system. I am also on a laptop and I don't like the heat and the wear and tear.

I value performance too that's why I'll never use any kinds of flatpaks, app images or anything similar, just native code that's executed by CPU directly is what I care about.

Yes me too, but in FG's case, they only have an Appimage. So do I extract it?

 

[CaffeineAddict]

I am also on a laptop and I don't like the heat and the wear and tear.

Understood, laptops are not good for that.

but in FG's case, they only have an Appimage. So do I extract it?

If I'm you I'd download source code and compile it:

Download Central – FlightGear Flight Simulator

GitHub - FlightGear/flightgear: Mirror: FlightGear - Open source flight sim

Mirror: FlightGear - Open source flight sim . Contribute to FlightGear/flightgear development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

Build instructions are here:

flightgear/README.cmake at next · FlightGear/flightgear

Mirror: FlightGear - Open source flight sim . Contribute to FlightGear/flightgear development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

edit:
If you absolutely want to avoid compiling then see this guide below after you download the app image from official site:

Running AppImages — AppImage documentation

docs.appimage.org

 

[gvisoc]

Didn't I state that I am running Arch?

Haha no! And given your username I thought you'd be hating to use AUR packages on Debian, to which I thought "Oh boy, I'd hate that too!" XD

OK, I won't de-rail the thread anymore.

 

[kc1di]

I think you will have to make a choice dump Arch or put up with AUR. I my self don't like AUR and don't use it so don't use Arch or it's many children. But that's a personal choice almost any software can be compiled from source. But it takes times and a little knowledge. If you hate AUR so much then find a different Distro to use. Flight gear can be made to work in most of them one way or another. But you do need a good computer to run it. I love that with Linux you have choices.

 

[Vimmer]

Can somebody explain why I need to build them myself, and not the host also giving the compiled binary?

-creating app images and binaries is an extra step for the developers, and is worse from their viewpoint because you then can't see the code. Seeing the code makes it open source, even though some open source does have the easier install options.

-compiling is more portable. If you have to compile it yourself, chances are that it will work on every linux operating system that has make.

-more error messages. This gives both the developers and the users a more searchable way to troubleshoot problems.

I personally like having the easy "just install" method and the compile options available: on debian, the synaptic package manager does that, and then i compile the github programs written in C.

I actually think synaptic is many times better than the software apps in Ubuntu, Mint, and Fedora.