What are the best Linux package managers?

Question

33

Options
Considered

1.1K

User
Recs.

26 mins

Last
Updated

Here’s the Deal

22 Options Considered

Best Linux package managers	Price	Packages	requires sudo
89 Portage	-	-	-
87 Pacman	-	-	-
83 XBPS (X Binary Package System)	-	-	-
79 DPKG (Debian Package Manager)	-	>55.000	-
71 pkgsrc	Free	-	yes

See Full List

yay

Add Video or Image

I Recommend...

Built By the Slant team

Find the best product instantly.

Lustre recommends the best products at their lowest prices – right on Amazon.

4.7 star rating

Try it now - it's free

score 94 · Answer 1

Portage

Top Pro

Decide which dependencies to install

WIth portage you can decide and customize which dependencies to install through some thing called USE flags. These are keywords that when defined, will tell Portage that you want support for the chosen keyword. See More

Top Con

Building from source take a lot of processing time

Most of Portage's pros are related to its "porting" process, building packages from source. This is very resource-intensive, with the few biggest packages sometimes taking even multiple hours to update or install. See More

JoyfulAkras's Experience

One of the best package management systems that exist. You can do so many things and if you listen to all warnings,news and errors you will never break you system or feel unsure what to do. Sometimes I think it is AI powered(which it is not). See More

Top Pro

Can install multiple versions of the same package simultaneously

Slotting is a feature which allows users to install multiple versions of a software simultaneously. This is especially useful for libraries which have changed interfaces between versions. See More

Top Con

Very slow

Dependency resolution is very slow and single-threaded, so usually you will see one of your cores running like crazy for over a minute. See More

FunMidir's Experience

Gentoo's idea is a noble one but the package manager is just SO SLOW. If they made some kind of caching server or something like that, it could be faster. so I don't see any excuse. See More

Top Pro

Allows both binary and source installation

With portage you can either compile packages from source or you can download and install their binary versions. See More

Top Con

Feature creep

It is very complicated and offers plenty of options. See More

Haxmeister's Experience

The best dependency resolution of all package managers. Portage compiles and installs packages to your machines specific instruction set for the most efficient functionality achievable by a given software. It is light years ahead of binary package managers. See More

Top Pro

Simple overlay management

Adding supplemental repositories, aka overlays, is easy with eselect-repository or layman. See More

Top Con

You can not create packages under a non-portage distribution

Makes maintaining software for gentoo based systems a burden. See More

Deuxis's Experience

Portage is the Linux source-based package manager, giving perfect control over packages via tweaking the build process, like only including the support and dependencies of packages the user wants it to support. See More

Top Pro

You can view a list of programs that can be installed

With portage you can view a list of all the programs that you can install by going to /usr/portage and running ls. See More

Top Con

High memory usage

Usually takes between 400-800MB of RSS (no problem to get over 1GB), so it's nothing for an old hardware. See More

Top Pro

Sandboxes build process

Portage uses a sandbox as a safety measure during build processes. This is done to ensure that no packages accidentally write outside a 'safe' location. See More

Top Pro

Respects customized config files

By default, portage doesn't delete or move any customized config files, thus enabling competent users to modify any config file however they want. See More

Top Pro

Implements a standard with alternate implementations

If you need faster resolution, you can run pkgcore for search and portage for installing, and they work well together. See More

Top Pro

Full control over installed packages

You can fully control all packages if you use it properly. See More

See All

score 271 · Answer 2

Pacman

Top Pro

Fast

Pacman is objectively one of the fastest package managers around. This is because it's very minimalistic and it installs only prebuilt packages. See More

Top Con

Bad handling of conflicts

Relying on the entire system being updated to the exact same version, making the famed rolling-release model ironically even worse in practice than the traditional version model. See More

Electrux Redsworth's Experience

Works properly, all the time! See More

Top Pro

Advanced when you want it

Pacman does not overwrite modified configuration files. Instead, it saves a .pacnew file for it which you can later merge at your leisure. See More

Top Con

Poor Multiarch support

can not install regular foreign arch packages alongside and needs specific nade subarch packages. See More

DebonairWatatsumi's Experience

The dirtiest package manager. It doesn't keep track of which dependencies were installed explicitly and which were transitive. See More

Top Pro

Zstd compression

Uses Zstd compression for fast downloads & updates. See More

Top Con

Doesn't always clean up after itself

Pacman leaves new configuration versions around and generally doesn't handle file conflicts smoothly. See More

DebonairVili's Experience

it is fast and allows for AUR See More

Top Pro

Packaging signing keyring and mirror list

Both are also provided through packages which keeps them up to date. See More

Top Con

Unintuitive syntax

Pacman has a difficult syntax and commands to remember. See More

ThriftyVanapagan's Experience

10/10 would reccoment See More

Top Pro

Manages dependencies reliably

Top Con

No partial upgrades

Pacman just doesn't support partial upgrades. It has to always be system upgrade and never package upgrade. See More

Deuxis's Experience

Pacman is simplistic. It's good at only one job, fetching prebuilt packages. While this complies with the unix philosophy, in practice it severely limits Pacman's usefulness, making it more like a part of an actual package manager. See More

Top Pro

Synchronizes package lists with the master server

It allows the system to always be up to date. See More

Top Con

Not KISS

It is not simple or does follow the UNIX philosophy instead it tries too much at the same time which results in slowness and errors. See More

PrudentSzelatya's Experience

Very good packages manager. Every packages are always up to date. Very simple and straightforward. See More

Top Pro

Simple syntax

Pacman has a relatively simple syntax which is easy to get used to. For example: pacman -Syu to update, pacman -S foo to install etc... Commands are not long and there are not many different commands to learn by heart. See More

Top Con

Naive

For example, it doesn't allow you to purge (remove package and its configuration files). See More

PopularPrabhasa's Experience

it fast and used simple command See More

Top Pro

Pacman hooks add power and flexibility

Hooks are scripts that can run automatically before and after Pacman transactions like installation and removal of packages. For example, Pacman hooks can be used to automatically create system users and files during the installation of packages. Pacman hooks can also be used to delete configuration files and clear caches during the removal of packages. See More

Top Con

No official way to downgrade packages

This is related to it not supporting partial system upgrades. The very same reason prevents it from downgrading a particular package easily. Doing so can easily result in conflicts and may require a system downgrade or downgrade of multiple packages. See More

niingu's Experience

THE fastest package manager I have encountered so far.. the name says it all Pac(kage)Man(ager) :) See More

Top Pro

Many wrappers available which extend functionality

Here are three examples: Powerpill, Yay, and Octopi. Powerpill extends Pacman by enabling asynchronous downloads of packages from multiple mirrors using Aria2 and Reflector. Yay extends Pacman, by enabling automatic download, compilation, and installation of packages from the AUR. Octopi extends Pacman with a GUI frontend written in Qt. See More

Top Con

Bloated

It is over complicated and bloated compared to other *NIX package managers like dpkg, rpm or pkgsrc. For example, they follow the Unix philosophy and do "one" thing well, which is to install local packages and use other frontends to configure, remote install or to search for packages/files. Pacman, however, tries to do all those tasks in one app, which adds some flaws. See More

cosmo's Experience

Pacman redefines what a package manager could be with super simple commands and incredibly fast runtimes. It's also amazingly extensible with wrappers like Powerpill and Yay as well as hooks before, during, and after operations. See More

Top Pro

Easy to create custom repositories

Pacman makes it fairly easy and straightforward to create your own repository with signatures. See More

Top Con

Painfully slow

It takes ages to update the system compared to dpkg or rpm, which due its poor performance by unpacking very large packages with many files to the filesystem. See More

Top Pro

Can be made to use any downloader

Allows to change its downloader from internal to any other like wget or aira2. See More

Top Con

No parallelization

Neither downloads nor processing can be set to run in parallel. See More

Top Pro

Simple and easy to use with custom repositories

The instructions and configurations for using a custom local or remote repositories are pretty simple and straightforward. See More

Top Con

You can not create pacman packages under a non-pacman distribution

For example on fedora/suse/debian/ubuntu, you can easily create rpm and deb packages, but you can not create pacman packages, which makes it uncomfortable to support arch/pacman packages. See More

Top Pro

Supports colored output

And looks cleaner and nicer with such thing enabled. Simply find and uncomment "Color" option in /etc/pacman.conf or add it yourself if it doesn't exists. See More

Top Pro

Kernel build ordered

Top Pro

Supports deltas

However default Arch Linux mirror servers does not provide deltas, so it is not so useful like with DNF. See More

See All

score 32 · Answer 3

XBPS (X Binary Package System)

Top Pro

Extremely fast

Top Con

Unable to create packages under a non-xbps distribution

Makes maintaining packages a hassle. See More

DignifiedTenenet's Experience

Very easy to use See More

Top Pro

Can detect incompatibilities

XBPS can detect incompatible shared libraries or dependencies and gives you options before installing. See More

Top Con

Not just one command to run

It's not a very big drawback, just not as convenient as one command with multiple options to remove and search for apps. See More

ModestCaelus's Experience

fast, and stable. See More

Top Pro

Allows partial updates

Top Pro

Can install binaries or build from source

When installing software you can choose to install binaries or build it from source (natively or cross-compiled). See More

Top Pro

Lots of features

XBPS can not only be used for installing/removing packages, but it can query for package info (such as version, dependencies, size etc), reconfigure packages, report and fix issues by modifying the package database, search for alternatives, manage local repositories and various other useful tools. See More

Top Pro

Written from scratch

See All

score 155 · Answer 4

DPKG (Debian Package Manager)

Top Pro

Great multiarch support

DKPG has one of the best multiarch support you can easily add new architectures with dpkg --add-architecture $ARCH to install foreign architectures. See More

Top Con

Does not work well with packagekit

Since packagekit was developed with rpm in mind it does not support all dpkg features. See More

Buster Blue's Experience

They're simple to use and have never given me any major problems. See More

Specs

Packages:>55.000

Top Pro

Follows the UNIX philosophy

DPKG and it frontends follow strictly the UNIX philosophy that one package should do one thing well. eg: Dpkg: does simple package management APT and aptitude : adds repository and dependency tracking debconf: does configuration synaptic: allows mouse interaction to all apt/aptitude options See More

Top Con

Package creation needs more than one file

A debian package needs at least the following files to build it with debhelper debian/source/format - deb format debian/changelog - changelog file with version number and dae etc. debian/compat - debian package version debian/control - package information, dependencies & co debian/copyright - license information debian/rules - the make file to build the package However the really important files are control, changelog and rules all other are generic. See More

WorthyTaevataat's Experience

Naff, bloated, and slow. See More

Top Pro

De facto package manager / widely used

Due the popularity of Ubuntu, Debian and Linux Mint it is almost certain that you find the package you want as a pre-built deb package. See More

Raghu Ranganathan's Experience

I've used dpkg across multiple ubuntu distros and have never been disappointed with it. It works well, and has been maintained well. Although it is a great package manager with the highest package support I know of, it lacks in flexibility and has not aged as well as other managers like pacman. I'd still recommend this if you are using a debian based linux distro. See More

Top Pro

Very easy to create packages

There are plenty of helpers to easily create packages. You just need to create 5 files: source/format, compat, rules, control & changelog and run dpkg-buildpackage. See More

David Aslan French's Experience

easy to use and neigh on universal. highly recommend. See More

Top Pro

Standard archives

Deb packages are simple ar archives with additional tar, lzma, bzip, gzip support. See More

Ajay Kumar Rawani's Experience

Awesome ! See More

Top Pro

Fast

DPKG isn't as bloated as other package managers since it is only made for local package management. See More

Top Pro

Plenty of frontends

You can use apt, aptitude, cupt, debdelta or apt-build on the terminal. See More

Top Pro

User interaction

It is possible to interact/ask questions to all pre and post install scripts. This makes it possibe to add questions for package configuration or to display EULA/License screens that have to be accepted before installation. See More

Top Pro

You can create deb packages on almost all linux distributions

This makes maintenance and support easy. See More

See All

score 28 · Answer 5

pkgsrc

Top Pro

Adapted for use on over a dozen different operating systems

Has been adopted to be used on several Unix-like operating systems and Windows. It's also the default package manager of DragonflyBSD and of the (now discounted) Bluewall Linux distro. See More

Top Con

Not so broadly used on MacOS as compared with MacPorts

You do not hear about Pkgsrc as openly as you hear the words "HomeBrew" or "MacPorts". See More

Specs

requires sudo:yes

packages:18560

Supports Apple Silicon:Yes

Top Pro

Both binary packages and source build possible

Fast software installation is possible by using binary packages. It's also easy to build from source which allows for different compile-time options (like different UI backends) as well as gaining access to pre-release versions of software in certain cases. See More

Top Con

Complicated

It has many options. See More

Top Pro

pkgin is an apt-like tool for installing binaries from pkgsrc

pkgin aims to be a tool similar to apt/yum for managing pkgsrc binaries by relying on pkg_summary for installing, removing and upgrading packages and dependencies, using a remote repo. See More

Top Con

Relatively complicated setup and installation

Installing and setting pkgsrc up is a bit more complicated than in other package managers where it often consists in running a single script. See More

Top Pro

Can be installed on almost any unix system

Top Con

Can't install some packages

Even building well known packages (except MacPorts) from source using the ports can fail. See More

Top Pro

Batteries included

The pkgsrc offers a rich framework for creation of new packages. This includes not only support for many build systems, but also checks for sanity packaging, and also number of facilities to ensure package source portability between different operating systems. See More

Top Pro

Offering tooling for backporting fixes

Backporting fixes can be done by cherry-picking updates from a newer branch (pkgsrc is released every 3 months) and creating a package. Sometimes bugs need to be fixed for production and there is neither a fix in newer pkgsrc nor the softwares upstream. So pkgsrc has tools like pkgdiff, mkpatches, etc. that help with developing patches and building binary packages from that. A bit of documentation about that process can be found here. See More

See All

score 45 · Answer 6

RPM (RPM Package Manager)

Top Pro

Follows the UNIX philosophy

It only does one thing and that well. See More

Top Con

Many forks

Currently there exist rpmv4, rpmv5 and distribution specific forks like Mandrake's urpm. See More

Top Pro

Part of LSB

It is part of the Linux standard base. See More

Top Con

No interaction

RPM does not support user interaction upon install. See More

Top Pro

Very easy to create packages

It is very easy to create packages for it, you just need a small spec file. See More

Top Con

Plenty of different frontends

Almost any rpm distro has its own frontend for rpm there is zypper, yum, apt-rpm, dnf, poldek and many more. See More

Top Pro

Standard archives

RPM packages are simple cpio archives that have additional compression support. See More

Top Pro

Easy to create packages on non-rpm based distros

This makes maintenance and support easy. See More

Top Pro

Much more advanced than apt

See All

score 61 · Answer 7

Nix

Top Pro

No side effects when building packages

Nix is a purely functional package management system. This means that the act of building a package does not have side effects, such as destructively updating or deleting files that may be used by other packages. See More

Top Con

Cannot handle filetypes that have different semantics across different versions

While the functional approach that Nix takes is great for sandboxing binary artifacts of packages, it seriously lacks any power in handling configuration files or user data. It's difficult to upgrade and downgrade files where semantics and syntax can change between versions. Especially in Debian/Ubuntu it can cause severe problems where the upgrade process blocks and the user needs to resolve the 3-way merge. See More

davidak's Experience

Technically very advanced package manager. User interface improvements are in development. See More

Top Pro

Can use multiple versions of the same package

Because of the functional approach it takes, Nix makes it easy for systems to use multiple versions of the same package simultaneously, and ensure that updating or removing a package can't break other packages. See More

Top Con

Steep learning curve

Raymond Gauthier's Experience

I use this to manage the configuration of all my machines and use it for most projects every time I can. It can subsume any language specific package manager (e.g.: pypi2nix, etc). Use it and you will finally be able to focus on your job instead of installing stuff ;) See More

Top Pro

Can replace docker in some places

Top Con

Does not work well for services on non-NixOS systems

When using Nix with anything other than NixOS you can run into difficulties with trying to start up services. For example, you can install docker with Nix, but it won't integrate with the host system's systemd leaving you to handcraft awkward workarounds in order to start the background service that docker requires. This seems like a critical flaw when using Nix on anything that is not NixOS, and it's unfortunate because this affects many of the packages many users would be most interested in using Nix to handle. See More

Top Pro

The configuration works on "All machines"

No more of the traditional: "it works on my machine". When it says reproducible, this is the real deal. See More

Top Con

Feels slightly over-complicated

Top Pro

Isolated development environments

Nix allows the creation of project-specific shell and build environments which are isolated from the rest of the system. These environments are defined declaratively to ensure reproducibility. See More

See All

score 14 · Answer 8

AppImage

Top Pro

No integration into the system

Leaves your system untouched. See More

Top Con

No automatic updates

You have to re-download the application to update it. See More

Top Pro

Easy to use

Just execute the package to run the software. See More

Top Con

Big file size

Top Pro

Easy deployment of software

It just works across different distros. See More

Top Con

No wayland support

Apps look pretty bad on 4k monitors. See More

See All

score 8 · Answer 9

PiSi (Packages Installed Successfully as Intended)

Top Pro

Uses "Kaptan"

Top Con

Simple syntax

score 22 · Answer 10

GNU Guix

Top Pro

Can always roll back to a safe state

Guix creates new profile generations for each operation. If anything goes wrong, a simple --roll-back gets you immediately back to the previous, working, generation. Because it is a purely functional package management system, generations don't affect each other, so you're back to the exact same state as before : still working. See More

Top Con

Updates take a long time

It's gotten better over time but both updating Guix itself and updating the installed packages can take a long time. See More

CompassionateDerzelas's Experience

Switched to guix so that I avoid losing arch configuration time on new installs and for integration with emacs. No regret. See More

Specs

Packages:>15,000

Price:None

Requires root:No

Top Pro

Can setup a shell which has exactly the defined libraries available

A method which works across languages and provides a reproducible programming environment. See More

Top Con

Cannot handle filetypes that have different semantics across different versions

While the functional approach that Guix takes is great for sandboxing binary artifacts of packages, it seriously lacks any power in handling configuration files or user data. It's difficult to upgrade and downgrade files where semantics and syntax can change between versions. See More

SplendidAnnaPerenna's Experience

Guile is awesome for management See More

Top Pro

Can create independent packages

Guix pack creates packages which do not need Guix to be run. See More

InventiveSolInvictus's Experience

Used it both as part of the stand-alone distro GuixSD, and as a "secondary package manager" on top of Debian, and the declarative and purely functional nature is amazing. See More

Top Pro

No side effects when building packages

Guix is a purely functional package management system. This means that the act of building a package does not have side effects, such as destructively updating or deleting files that may be used by other packages. See More

Top Pro

Can build containers right-away, from docker to tarballs

See guix pack --help and here. See More

Top Pro

Doesn't require root privileges

Normal users can install packages on a Guix-enabled system, or even run their own Guix instance if the system isn't Guix-enabled. See More

Top Pro

Easy to add your own packages

The clean and declarative syntax makes it easy to define new packages by using an existing one as an example. See More

See All

score 14 · Answer 11

Entropy - the Sabayon package manager

Top Pro

Very fast and high QA

You can tweak command linea to enable and set the multifetch of packages. Support deltas and since hereditate mostly the packages of Portage, with along all the QA test results in a high QA See More

score 6 · Answer 12

URPM (User RedHat Package Manager)

Top Pro

Great RPM fork

Once forked from RPM by Mandrake and improved. See More

score 27 · Answer 13

YUM

Top Pro

Avoids dependency hell

All the metadata for installed software is stored into a XML file. This is used to avoid conflicting dependencies among packages. What's more, YUM also automatically syncs remote metadata to the local client in order to avoid failures if a command is not run at the correct interval. See More

Top Con

Can be very slow to download headers if not on broadband

Yum can be much slower than other package managers if the internet speed is not at least average to high. See More

Top Pro

Simple syntax

Top Con

Does fsync often

Like its successor, DNF, YUM does fsync too often. The result is poor YUM and system performance while YUM does its work. See More

Top Pro

Binary delta for faster transfer times

Yum supports Delta RPMs which allow transmitting only the parts of the package that have changed. See More

Top Con

Very slow overall

YUM is very slow - beginning with relatively slow startup, extremely slow default plugins, slow dependency resolution, and ending with slow installation of packages. See More

Top Pro

Is/was the industry standard

YUM is still widely used in corporate environments. See More

Top Con

Slow (and might be fragile) dependency resolution

YUM dependency resolution is very slow. In addition to it, the people often experiencing very hard dependencies (it might be not a YUM problem). See More

Top Pro

Provides pre and post install sanity checks

What might be thought of a standard feature, isn't. Thankfully RPM provides both a transaction test and a post install verification to make sure everything installs neatly. See More

Top Con

Poor design

YUM is written in Python 2 and people often blaming the quality of YUM's code. See More

Top Pro

Supports multiple verification methods

Supports verification with GPG and MD5. See More

Top Pro

Clean and easy to understand

Top Pro

Supports multiple compression methods

Supports gzip, bzip2, lzma, or xz compression. See More

Top Pro

Allows for complex dependency definitions

Alongside allowing dependency on a certain package, it allows depending on a library, versioned symbol, or a GAC'd Mono assembly. See More

See All

score 14 · Answer 14

Flatpak

Top Pro

Cross-distribution

You can install flatpak packages on any distro you want. See More

Top Con

Bloated

Due to the way Flatpack handles packaging, this can lead to a large cache being created which quickly inflates to unreasonable sizes. Not only this, but using flatpack requires a large chunk of space to be reserved for it's own file hierarchy. See More

SensibleUksakka's Experience

Another idiotic idea from RedHat/GNOME... See More

Specs

Initial Maintainer:Alex Larsson

Default Repository:FlatHub.org

Top Pro

Doesn't bog system down like snaps.

Plus it's not proprietary. See More

JoyousArshiTengri's Experience

I use deb and snap in addition to flatpaks, flatpak is my favourite yet. See More

Top Pro

fast

searching, installing and updating are faster than others in my experience See More

David Aslan French's Experience

Could use a little bit better documentation but it's relatively new and it's an ambitious project worth keeping an eye on. Also, unlike snap it doesn't do nutty things to your filesystem. See More

Top Pro

Application sandboxing

All applications are limited to a set of predefined permissions, enhancing privacy and security. See More

Top Pro

A well-written documentation

Top Pro

Flexible runtime management

You can install a lot of runtimes for different apps, making applications a lot more compatible while still allowing some applications to share their runtimes. See More

See All

score 9 · Answer 15

Docker

Top Pro

Total isolation

Applications run in their own separate virtualized operating systems See More

Top Con

Heavy

Images that aren't optimized to have a small base (like Alpine) can often be 100MB/+ and for running lightweight utilities the startup time of a Docker image may not make sense. See More

Specs

Platforms:Windows, Linux, Mac

Top Pro

Composability

Applications can be combined by linking ports on a virtual network. See More

Top Pro

Reproducable enviroments

Because of the high level of isolation and the image-based build system, you can move Docker containers between machines effortlessly. With fleetctl and CoreOS you can even do this automatically. See More

Top Pro

Manage application data in separate volumes

Any state that applications need to maintain is put in a volume, which can be mounted on the local filesystem or managed by Docker. See More

Top Pro

A Godsend when used with Portainer

For simple or semi-simple use-cases, using Docker with Portainer makes microservice management a breeze See More

See All

score 5 · Answer 16

Conda

Top Pro

Multi-platform

Top Con

Still some of pip packages cannot be installed from conda

Then pip install may install conflicting packages against conda or at another location if a user didn't use pip install --targets. See More

DebonairWatatsumi's Experience

It tries to integrate with the system but it only messes it up. It's surprisingly easy to build something with, say, pipenv, (which is the de facto python build tool) only to discover it was built with some weird python provided by conda. See More

Top Pro

Large comunity of package maintainers at conda-forge

https://conda-forge.github.io/ See More

Top Pro

Support for multiple environments

Top Pro

Allows for multiple environments

It is great for developers since you can easily switch between complete environments with different versions of packages, for testing and development. See More

Top Pro

Binary installs

They are fast and reliable as they do not need to compile before installation. See More

Top Pro

Open source

Conda is open source and on Github, so if you see something wrong you can fix it and submit a patch. See More

See All

score 4 · Answer 17

eopkg

Top Pro

Excellent rollback and repair features.

Can easily rollback if an update goes awry. Can also choose to check all installed packages and repair them, instead of just repairing or reinstalling individual packages. See More

Top Con

Not powerful

MemorableEshu's Experience

Using it with Solus Plasma See More

Top Pro

Simple syntax

See All

score 7 · Answer 18

APT

Top Pro

Fast

The installation of a new package is almost as fast as pacman See More

score 5 · Answer 19

Linuxbrew

Top Con

So slow!

Because it's not made with binaries but code, the update and the installation of a new package is extremely slow due to the compiling time. See More

Top Pro

Can install packages to the ~/user-home-folder

David Aslan French's Experience

Linuxbrew is a really cool project! It's a port of the famous macOS Homebrew package manager to linux. You can run it on all sorts of linux distros, even Windows Subsystem Layer. Packages can be contained to your user home folder so you don't need root privileges to install stuff (though it's easier if you do have such privileges). Highly recommend! See More

Top Pro

22 Options Considered

My Recommendation for Portage

My Recommendation for Portage

Decide which dependencies to install

Building from source take a lot of processing time

Can install multiple versions of the same package simultaneously

Very slow

Allows both binary and source installation

Feature creep

Simple overlay management

You can not create packages under a non-portage distribution

You can view a list of programs that can be installed

High memory usage

Sandboxes build process

Respects customized config files

Implements a standard with alternate implementations

Full control over installed packages

My Recommendation for Pacman

My Recommendation for Pacman

Fast

Bad handling of conflicts

Advanced when you want it

Poor Multiarch support

Zstd compression

Doesn't always clean up after itself

Packaging signing keyring and mirror list

Unintuitive syntax

Manages dependencies reliably

No partial upgrades

Synchronizes package lists with the master server

Not KISS

Simple syntax

Naive

Pacman hooks add power and flexibility

No official way to downgrade packages

Many wrappers available which extend functionality

Bloated

Easy to create custom repositories

Painfully slow

Can be made to use any downloader

No parallelization

Simple and easy to use with custom repositories

You can not create pacman packages under a non-pacman distribution

Supports colored output

Kernel build ordered

Supports deltas

My Recommendation for XBPS (X Binary Package System)

My Recommendation for XBPS (X Binary Package System)

Extremely fast

Unable to create packages under a non-xbps distribution

Can detect incompatibilities

Not just one command to run

Allows partial updates

Can install binaries or build from source

Lots of features

Written from scratch

My Recommendation for DPKG (Debian Package Manager)

My Recommendation for DPKG (Debian Package Manager)

Great multiarch support

Does not work well with packagekit

Follows the UNIX philosophy

Package creation needs more than one file

De facto package manager / widely used

Very easy to create packages

Standard archives

Fast

Plenty of frontends

User interaction

You can create deb packages on almost all linux distributions

My Recommendation for pkgsrc

My Recommendation for pkgsrc

Adapted for use on over a dozen different operating systems

Not so broadly used on MacOS as compared with MacPorts

Both binary packages and source build possible

Complicated

pkgin is an apt-like tool for installing binaries from pkgsrc

Relatively complicated setup and installation

Can be installed on almost any unix system

Can't install some packages

Batteries included