Mixing names. Community repo is different from AUR. The first has rules, the second one is a free for all.
AUR steam was missing dependencies in a way that specific installed apps weren't functioning right, but that's not something you could figure out from the binary itself. For example Portal depended on texture compression which wasn't included by default. Without buying everything in the Steam store you wouldn't know that.
The good thing was that it was corrected within a day. How long does a typical distro bug report take, before it's even looked at?
This is also Arch, but I just yesterday reported a bug to the distro maintainers because the upgrade to Perl 5.26 broke my monitoring. A fixed package was published into the repo within 3 hours: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/54322
I guess I got lucky though. A turnaround time that short for community projects also depends on whether the contributor in question happens to be at his desk at that point.
He's talking about the AUR not the official community repo. It was tested on the AUR and the feedback was integrated to identify the dependencies. It's since graduated from the AUR to the official community repo.
The AUR has pretty much everything, community maintained. The arch build system makes it trivial to package something no matter where it comes from. You can use it to repackage a .deb or a .rpm (it'll even download it from its official home and verify checksums), or a project from a git repo, for specific releases, or tracking a branch, or what have you.
There's all kinds of software on the AUR and it's all up to date. The official repos also move very fast, compared to other distros.
Read about a new feature in a recent version of some software you use? Just update, it's probably already landed in arch. You don't have to wait six months for a release window to install software that's already ready.
I didn't say "official community repo", but "community repo", because I don't know about Arch.
Then you're calling this repo which I must not name community repo "community-maintained". So it is a community repo.
All while people in this thread advertise for Arch because this community non-community repo is so awesome. But when things break people are not allowed to take it into account.
If you try to lure people with this AUR, at least own its failures, not only its successes.
Nothing you've pointed at is a failure, it's simply the process. How can you call up in two hours, rapidly tested and brought to 100% shortly thereafter, a failure? How can using the software you want to use immediately after its release ever be called a failure? Success is waiting for two months for a release window? No thank you.
I simply find it remarkable that someone actually chose this failure for his advertising. There are certainly many instances of quick turnaround times that don't center on failure.
Packages go to the 'testing' repository to allow checking for thing being broken. They usually only stay there for a short time (a week or so, often less).
And you feel that's a good thing?