Here’s the Deal

Aura vs trizen

11 1

23 0

When comparing Aura vs trizen, the Slant community recommends trizen for most people. In the question“What are the best AUR helpers for Arch-based Linux distributions?” trizen is ranked 2nd while Aura is ranked 4th. The most important reason people chose trizen is:

It's very intuitive and has a pacman-like syntax.

Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking

Common Questions

What are the best AUR helpers for Arch-based Linux distributions?

Aura

trizen

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
Easy to use

It's very intuitive and has a pacman-like syntax.

Pro
Being written in Perl, trizen has an extra level of security over bash as well as performance and power benefits inherent to Perl

It is written in Perl in a functional-recurisive way, featuring full AUR dependencies support.

Being written in Perl (or any other language, except bash), it means that it can't execute/source (silently) the PKGBUILD to get information for a package, which guarantees an extra-level of security. Other benefits are the performance and power that comes with Perl.