My favorite is pacman because it is fast af but it has really weird syntax’s

  • july@sh.itjust.works
    6·
    1 year ago

    apk is scary fast. Makes spinning up a quick Alpine chroot with e.g. Go or Rust for building with Musl take like 10 seconds.

  • Jummit@lemmy.one
    5·
    1 year ago

    I’m using pacman with paru right now, but I have to say than installing flatpaks has been a really nice experience on my postmarket-os phone and on desktop as well. I am using Gnome Software to install and run with two clicks, feels very snappy.

  • sjmulder@lemmy.sdf.org
    3·
    1 year ago

    I’d like to put in my 2 cents for pkgsrc

    It’s not the sexiest, fastest or most full-featured but having a package manager that can bootstrap on anything even remotely smelling of Unix is awesome. And it sits cleanly next to whatever native package manager may exist.

    pkgsrc drew me into NetBSD and becoming an official developer was a proud and happy moment.

  • Klaymore@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    Nix on NixOS - pin any version of a package you want, multiple versions of the same package, works on all Linux distros and MacOS, and with Home-Manager it can even manage your dotfiles.

  • Emerald_Earth@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 year ago

    Debian user here, I just use apt. Really easy to use. I don’t really think about being fond of a certain package manager, if it works, it works.

  • Netto Hikari@social.fossware.space
    1·
    1 year ago

    I use Linux since 2004 and have a lot of experience with all kinds of different package managers. I use all these actively on different systems right now and I like them best in this order:

    flatpak > apk > paru / pacman > portage > apt

    Used to prefer portage over everything, but as I got older, with 2 little children, etc. I just don’t want to use source-based stuff intensively any more. Nowadays, I prefer to just install my sheit and have it work.

  • blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk
    1·
    1 year ago

    I like apt for its syntax, I like yay for it’s speed and ease compared to pacman.

    Pacman has absurd option syntax, I think to deliberately make it feel exclusive. If the first thing you need to do is create a bunch of aliases or a crib sheet for basic things then it’s a terrible user experience.

    • Joe B@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 year ago

      I used to like portage a lot when I first tried gentoo. I was like dam I really have to build every single thing. I just want this. don’t get me wrong Gentoo keeps your system maintained clean and minimal but just the time compiling got my wife angry lol

      • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
        0·
        1 year ago

        It can get tedious on a single machine. Once you have enough for a binhost to start making sense… Now we’re talking 🤣

          • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
            1·
            1 year ago

            It’s some computing device (technically a smart toaster could do it) that shares the binaries over the network to other machines. Normally stuff is compiled for the lower common denominator when it comes to CPU architecture and supported features.

            I have it as a VM, some people do it on bare metal. I’m trying to to have multiple CPU architectures supported by cheating a bit with BTRFS snapshots at the moment; time will tell if it works out.

            • Joe B@lemmy.world
              0·
              1 year ago

              Got it.

              Never got into btrfs I see the value in it like something crashes or goes down you can go back to that snapshot and everything comes down but I just never really had issues. I distro hop also so i don’t know when I hope its spontaneous. Maybe one of these days I will get back to Arch and play with it

              • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
                1·
                1 year ago

                The ability to come back is awesome, although I have never had a reason to use it.

                For a distro hopper like yourself it would actually make like so much easier! Because of how subvolumes work - you can have every distro in a separate subvolume. They can share the home subvolume if you like, or not. You can have upgrades with a failsafe of sorts for the likes of Ubuntu, which, in my limited personal experience, have never ever been without issues.

                Having a server subvolume to run portage in and then snapshotting it to a desktop one, applying desktop config saves some time on recompiling the big friends like gcc and llvm.

                I did not understand the point of BTRFS at first as well, especially since it was slower than ext4. But since having started using it I’ve found that there are now scenarios that were not possible before or were incredibly complicated. Like read-only root, incremental backups over the network (yes, rsync exists, but this feels cleaner)

        • nyan@lemmy.cafe
          1·
          1 year ago

          No one’s fielded this yet, so I’ll give it a shot.

          Portage offers maximum configurability: you can switch optional package features on and off. If a package feature is off, you don’t need to install dependencies to support it, so it makes for a slimmer system.

          You can upgrade many packages even if the distribution hasn’t by copying a single small file to a new name and running two commands.

          Similarly, if you’re running a new or fringe architecture (like riscv) and want to try to install a package that isn’t officially available for it, you can do it fairly simply (minor edit to a text file or additional parameter at the command line). Doesn’t always work, but it’s still easier than the configure-make-make_install dance, and the dependencies are handled for you.

          Portage also supports a bunch of other fringe use cases, like pulling source straight from git and building it. And you can create simple packages by writing <10 lines of text file (well, specialized bash shell script).

          On the downside, Portage is S-L-O-W. It has more complicated dependency trees to resolve than other package managers, and installs most packages by building them from source (although this isn’t a requirement).

          I like it, though.

    • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
      0·
      1 year ago

      FYI: yay is no longer maintained (Untrue! See response here). Use paru instead Consider paru as an alternative option; it’s written in Rust and has better version tracking for *-git packages (won’t miss upgrades if the AUR version isn’t tracked, won’t do pointless upgrades if the AUR version changes but HEAD remains unchanged)

        • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
          1·
          1 year ago

          Huh! I appear to have fallen victim to misinformation. I stand corrected and I apologize for not properly confirm such a strong claim before repeating it like that.

          I suppose a more accurate way to put it is that yay has been slower to adopt new features (e.g.: yay#336 vs paru#260), but otherwise remains a current and well-maintained piece of software.

          • gizmonicus@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            1 year ago

            I was about to throw my computer out the window when you said that because I literally just implemented a bunch of ansible playbooks using yay to configure my machines and after yogurt et. al. being abandoned, I couldn’t take another change. Not yet. I’ll check out paru at some point though.