Just recently, after some updating a couple of days ago, I have been getting some weird feedback from yay.
I have been getting this warning that some applications are not in the AUR.
Packages not in AUR: litehtml0.9 python-pkg_resources.
I checked and these applications are not in the core or extra arch repository either!
I want to know if they are safe to remove, or does my system need them to function?
According to this thread litehtml is back in extra, not sure about the other one, may be it is the same thing
I saw that thread, but there was no conclusion to it. He does not state that the issue is solved or what he did. So I’ll wait a little longer to see if there is a resolution to this.
I am still waiting to see what people say.
It will continue to show this message regarding litehtml0.9 though because the package has been renamed to litehtml in version .10 leaving two packages installed. The old version has the name “litehtml0.9” that’s the actual package name not just a version reference.
I don’t know if it will affect apps by removing the old one so soon.
It says that it’s in extra now, so you want to delete the one you have from the AUR and get the one from extra…
About the other one I am not sure if it also gets moved, or if it has been removed for whatever reason.
So yes, waiting for more information might be the right thing to do, I am just cautious as there are currently a lot of attacks on the AUR, and I don’t know these packages. Could always be that one gets removed because it got compromised 
Yeah, I noticed that too. But what’s weird is that I don’t remember seeing litehtml 0.10-1 as an update, when I updated.
No one got anything from the AUR.
Update is saying that because that package is no longer in extra that it is checking the AUR to see if it is there and currently it is not.
Yes .10 is in extra but it has a different package name to the old one so wont ‘update’ the package itself. 0.10 must get installed as a new dependency or something.
I think the package maintainer goofed with the naming.
This is almost like a reverse version of AUR adoption.
Yeah, I noticed that the first version of litehtml has the version number tied to it and the second one doesn’t.
When did you update last? My litehtml0.9 package was upgraded/removed back in June.
$ paclog --package litehtml
[2026-06-08T09:17:35-0700] [ALPM] installed litehtml (0.9-3)
[2026-06-14T09:27:41-0700] [ALPM] upgraded litehtml (0.9-3 -> 0.10-1)
┬─[ajgringo619@EOS-HYPRLAND-HOST]─[/home/ajgringo619]─[13:49:10]
╰─>$ paclog --package litehtml0.9
[2026-06-14T09:27:41-0700] [ALPM] installed litehtml0.9 (0.9-2)
┬─[ajgringo619@EOS-HYPRLAND-HOST]─[/home/ajgringo619]─[13:49:45]
╰─>$
I pretty much check for updates almost everyday, but this just started appearing lately.
What do the (2) paclog commands I used show?
Well, according to the pacman -Qi output, the litehtml0.9 package is not needed by anything currently installed.
I’ve been seeing a lot of youtube videos about the AUR controversy, and that’s why I’m concerned about what yay is telling me. I heard there’s some script or application to check for bad AUR applications-packages, but don’t know where to get it. Do you know where I can get information about it?
Where does it show that?
Required By: None. By the way, the yay output showing packages not in the AUR is 100% correct, should be a red-flag to check all of the packages it listed like this.
Thanks, I didn’t notice that. I ran pacman -Qi python-pkg_resources and noticed that it’s not required by anything either. So, that settles it, I’m going to delete them both using pacman -R. Is there another switch I need to use for a clean uninstall or is pacman -R good enough?
If there had been such a package on the AUR it would have asked before installing it correct?
I would think so, but since I’m a newbie I’m not sure. There sure is a lot to learn with Linux! There’s a lot more knowledgeable people out there than me who can answer your question. I’m learning new things everyday as I go!
