Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Aura vs paru, the Slant community recommends Aura for most people. In the question“What are the best AUR helpers for Arch-based Linux distributions?” Aura is ranked 4th while paru is ranked 6th. The most important reason people chose Aura is:
Since the application is written in Haskell, it means that, unless the author went out of their way to subvert the type system, at least some classes of bugs must have been eliminated for the project to even compile, and so at least some basic level of stability is guaranteed.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Written in Haskell
Since the application is written in Haskell, it means that, unless the author went out of their way to subvert the type system, at least some classes of bugs must have been eliminated for the project to even compile, and so at least some basic level of stability is guaranteed.
Pro Similar syntax to pacman
pacman -Ss ghc
aura -As ghc
Pro Run as Root, Build as a User
makepkg gets very upset if you try to build a package as root. That said, a built package can't be handed off to pacman and installed if you don't run as root. Other AUR helpers ignore this problem, but Aura does not. Even when run with sudo, packages are built with normal user privilages, then handed to pacman and installed as root.
Pro Based on the design of yay
You can simply alias yay=paru if you switch from yay.
Pro Fast
Paru is faster than yay.
Pro Actively maintained
With the main yay developer stepping away from yay, paru is more actively maintained than yay.
Pro Saner defaults than yay
Cons
Con aura is difficult to use for system upgrade.
sudo aura -Syu
searches for .sig files for each repository.
.Sig files are not used with pacman
