What are the best Mac package managers?

Question

9

Options
Considered

607

User
Recs.

1 min

Last
Updated

Package managers help install, update, remove and configure software packages.

A good Mac package manager should be easy to use, fast, reliably up to date, as unintrusive as possible, require as little dependencies as possible, and not require root privileges.

Here’s the Deal

The Best 1 of 9 OptionsWhy?

Best Mac package managers	Price	packages	requires sudo
96 Homebrew	Free	4635	no
80 Homebrew Cask	Free	4051	no
77 Nix package manager	Free	15858	no
66 pkgsrc	Free	18560	yes
65 MacPorts	Free	-	yes

See Full List

8 Other Options Considered

Homebrew Cask

Top Con

Software no longer needed by anything (orphans) is hard to delete

Top Pro

Extends Homebrew

Homebrew Cask adds functionality to Homebrew such as allowing downloads of commercial licensed apps. See More

SharpQuiritis's Experience

Love this!! See More

Specs

packages:4051

requires sudo:no

Top Con

The developers are hostile to the users reporting issues

Top Pro

Active project

The project is very active, with commits almost daily and plenty of conversation in issues. This means that the app will see bugs fixed and possibly new features added. See More

EncouragingCelaeno's Experience

you'd better only need those 4000 managed packages - this is not functional See More

Top Con

Silently spies on the user by default

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11566720 See More

Top Pro

Manage graphical applications through the command line

Homebrew Cask allows you to install graphical applications through the command line, rather than having to go through the standard installation process. E.g. brew cask install google-chrome See More

Top Con

Requires Xcode

Homebrew Cask requires that Xcode is installed, which may be more work than what some want to spend on configuring this app. See More

Top Con

Duplicate apps found in brew may cause issue

There are warnings provided that apps found in brew should not be installed with brew cask (and vice versa). While the user is warned of this, mistakes can happen, which would be better to just see them avoided all together by not supplying duplicate apps. See More

Top Con

Goes against Apple's design choices with macOS and breaks the system

See All

Nix package manager

Top Pro

Can keep around several profiles for you to use

You can have different (probably overlapping) sets of software installed in two or more profiles that will be handled (changed, versioned, upgraded, reverted) independently. All software will be installed in the same /nix/store, so any overlaps between your sets will be physically installed only once. See More

Top Con

Steep learning curve

There are lots of unfamiliar concepts and jargon (e.g. fixpoint, instantiate, realise). See More

MagicalTuriacus's Experience

Doesn't work properly. And the package manager event can't delete itself! Really! It hasn't uninstall script! See More

Specs

packages:15858

requires sudo:no

Top Pro

You always and atomically get an isolated consistent profile

Every time you install, delete or change anything you get a new fresh copy of your user environment (set of symlinks to files in /nix/store) that's stored in the same /nix/store and handled mostly the same way. Your "profile" (symlink to one of environments) is updated after everything else is ready, so you'll never end up in a half-finished state of your system. 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

Top Pro

Packages installed with Nix don't overlap with packages installed in /usr/local

Since packages are stored in the /nix directory, it won't overlap with anything you'd install in /usr/local or wherever else. See More

Top Pro

Does not require root priviledges

Everything is owned by your user (unless you use more powerful multiuser mode that doesn't require root either). See More

Top Pro

It's easy to revert any change in your environment

Every time your profile changes, you get a new generation of your profile and older generations are kept around, so you can easily (and atomically) revert to older version of your profile. See More

Top Pro

Uses binary caches (that are provided) so you don't have to build anything locally

Due to its functional nature, it can just download a binary package with the same hash if its available and it'll get the very same package as you'd build locally (to the last bit that is). See More

Top Pro

Packages don't change after they are built

Nix treats packages like values in a functional language. Since they are built by functions without side effects they never change after they are built. See More

Top Pro

Easy to install

Requires just one shell script to install, only one directory is created via sudo. This makes for a pretty simple install method that most can grasp. See More

Top Pro

Very easy to share compiled binaries between machines

You can share packages via HTTP or SSH (push or pull) with just some simple commands. See More

See All

pkgsrc

Top Pro

pkgin is an apt-like tools 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

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

kaznovac's Experience

very easy to install and usage syntax is familiar to anyone with *nix experience, nice selection of packages (albeit some are not the newest version, but it is easy to contribute updates) See More

Specs

packages:18560

requires sudo:yes

Supports Apple Silicon:Yes

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

Can't install some packages

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

Julian Pereira's Experience

My time with Pkgsrc was limited because I prefer to use only one package manager on my system. I was really interested in Pkgsrc since it is actively developed by one BSDs (NetBSD) and it was built to be ported over to other systems. I felt that installing packages were really fast compared to the others. I found using it very much like using the ports system and pkg system on FreeBSD. The reason I moved away was because, it did not have the package that I wanted. I moved to MacPorts; which for the moment I believe is the best package manager for mac. See More

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

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

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

Top Pro

Does not need Xcode command line tools or Xcode.

This means that you can install it fresh on a new installation of MacOS and have all your favorite apps installed right from the start. See More

Top Pro

Installs and works in the same way as MacPorts

Installs its own dependencies which means that it is very secure. Cannot install anything unless you use the "sudo" command which is in keeping with the Unix philosophy. See More

Top Pro

Works easily with Ansible

Can be used from within Ansible to install packages on macOS. See More

Top Pro

Easy installation if you use 3rd party scripts

I used this one and it worked brilliantly. https://github.com/cmacrae/savemacos See More

See All

MacPorts

Top Pro

Nice variants system

MacPorts has a variants system that allows customizing builds with author provided options. See More

Top Con

New Packages and Updates take time

Macports isn't the first choice for developers producing new packages or binaries for macOS. Nor is it the fastest in getting updates. But in general, it usually is one of the most up to date and will be updated eventually. Some would see this as a con in comparison to Homebrew. See More

LikableTohil's Experience

Works almost perfectly. See More

Specs

requires sudo:yes

Supports Apple Silicon:Yes

Top Pro

Provides a consistent experience across OS X versions

MacPorts eschews Apple-supplied libraries and links sources against its own making sure that the experience is the same regardless of what OS X version is used. See More

Top Con

Bad at limiting dependencies

MacPorts has a habit of pulling very specific versions of dependencies for each package. It downloads different version of already existing dependencies even in cases where the existing dependency version would have worked seamlessly. See More

MemorableProserpina's Experience

I recommend MacPorts over Homebrew because it has always been reliable and consistent. See More

Top Pro

Has many more packages than its competitors

As of this writing, 20K packages. 3 to 5x more than other current package managers. See More

Top Con

Downloads unneeded libraries duplicating functionality already provided by Apple's libraries

As MacPorts eschews Apple-supplied libraries and links sources against its own a large duplication of functionality across MacPorts and Apple libraries can be found. See More

Julian Pereira's Experience

Having used Homebrew and Pkgsrc, I always come back to MacPorts. It is the best IMO and was initially developed by Apple in house; by an Apple employee, who happens to be the same person that created the awesome FreeBSD ports system. Having to use sudo for installing software is a huge plus for me and adheres to the UNIX security policy. These two reasons alone are a good starting point to recommend it over Homebrew or anything else. See More

Top Pro

Generally very up to date

MacPorts generally gets new software soon after it's available. This way users will not have to worry if their software is up to date. See More

Top Con

Requires root permissions (sudo) for installation of packages

A really good security feature, but some see it as a con. See More

CooperativeDianCecht's Experience

Been using MacPorts for years -- every time I try a new package manager on OS X, including homebrew, fink, and others, I always come back to MacPorts. Just make sure you install and use the package "port_cutleaves" to keep your installed packages to a minimum. See More

Top Pro

Fast

Written in Tcl & C, it's generally significantly faster than the competition. Tcl is also quite readable and comparable to Ruby, so it's also friendly to newcomers. See More

PatientGeras's Experience

Not as easy to use for command-line newbies as Homebrew, but it's worth the effort because the software you install is more likely to work. See More

Top Pro

Easy to use

Detailed instructions on the homepage are easy to follow. Official GUI app is also available See More

Top Pro

MacPorts is a native application: C + TCL

No need to install Ruby, or any other programming language. See More

Top Pro

Requires SUDO to install apps

No need to worry if some rogue app will change your binaries or configuration. See More

Top Pro

Great support for older systems

Top Pro

Download libraries instead of relying on Apple's caprices

Considering just how often Apple breaks things, any reduplication of of Apple-supplied libraries with the canonical sources is an asset. See More

Top Pro

More packages than competition

Top Pro

Apple Silicon Ready

With Apple moving over to its own silicon, macports has been ready for the move to ARM since 2.6.4 See More

Top Pro

Most of the available packages work

For example, trying to install Finch using Pkgsrc doesn't work, while installing it using MacPorts works perfectly. Finch isn't even on Homebrew's radar. See More

Top Pro

Initially started and developed by Apple employees and supported by Apple itself

Reading the story behind MacPorts, it is the only one that was developed by Apple by an Apple employee. In fact it is the same person that was responsible for creating the FreeBSD port system. See More

See All

Conda

Top Con

Doesn't have everything

Conda is relatively new and has a smaller user-base, so the set of packages available is limited. See More

Top Pro

Binary installs

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

Top Con

No way to resume downloads

Any download that is canceled or interrupted will have to be started over from the beginning as there is no built in solution for resuming downloads. See More

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 Con

Installs huge collection of default unneeded libraries

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

Rudix

Top Con

Not many packages

Although Rudix is in development since 2005, there's a distinct lack of packages available. This limits the usefulness of the package manager for the user. See More

Top Pro

Statically linked packages

Using statically liked packages allows each package to contain all of the dependencies it needs, this way the user just installs to then use the app. No muss no fuss. See More

Top Con

Lacks man files for installed packages

The man files for tools are not installed with the binaries. See More

Top Pro

Very easy and fast

Installing and removing packages is very easy, fast and painless thanks to using binary installs. See More

Top Con

Not sandboxed

Binaries go directly to /usr/bin, so they are not sandboxed. See More

See All

Nix

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

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

Steep learning curve

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

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

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

Feels slightly over-complicated

See All

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 273 · Accepted Answer

Homebrew

Top Pro

Easy to setup and use

Once installed, you control Homebrew using the brew command. You can find packages using brew search, install them using brew install and remove them using brew uninstall. See More

Top Con

Installs to a shared location (`/usr/local/`)

You can get warnings about non-homebrew files in this directory. In general there's a risk as it isn't well-isolated. According to this article (https://applehelpwriter.com/2018/03/21/how-homebrew-invites-users-to-get-pwned/), installing in the directory poses a security risk. See More

Jordan Fischer's Experience

Easy to setup and use, lots of uses for it. See More

Specs

packages:4635

requires sudo:no

Top Pro

Quick access to a large repository of open source software

Homebrew makes it easy for people to quickly install any open source software (that is contained within the apps repositories) for Mac. See More

Top Con

Cannot remove unneeded dependancies

Absolute nightmare to remove the package (formula in their jargon) with all of its dependencies that are no longer needed. See More

HumbleShapash's Experience

quick install, works out of the box, doesn't require sudo, and easy to keep healthy with brew doctor See More

Top Pro

Builds are quick and requires few dependencies

Homebrew uses already existing libraries and tools as much as possible to install software thus making builds quick and requiring few dependencies. See More

Top Con

Multiple versions of the same package aren't widely supported

Because of the way homebrew works and installs things into global locations, it doesn't easily support multiple versions of the same software. See More

SkillfulAltjira's Experience

Lightweight, fast, scalable See More

Top Pro

Unintrusive

Homebrew installs packages to their own directory and then symlinks their files into /usr/local. Homebrew won’t install files outside its prefix, and you can place a Homebrew installation wherever you like. See More

Top Con

Relies on outdated system libs

Electrux Redsworth's Experience

Works flawlessly and very easily as well. Holds true to the simple as possible philosophy of Mac. See More

Top Pro

Great community support

Top Con

Command line tools for XCode required

Once xcode is installed you can install Homebrew, including new(er)/different versions of most of the build stuff that xcode-select installed, like a newer gcc, newer git, etc. See More

NobleEuthenia's Experience

Its just well setup and you can easily install packages without thinking do they have that exact thing what you need or not See More

Top Pro

Little maintenance needed

In addition to not having to deal with corruption problems, Homebrew installs packages in userland. See More

Top Con

Does not require 'sudo' but DOES require user to be in sudo list of users

While this is a pro for some people, for others it's a con, especially in terms of security. If your users are non-administrators then they will not be able to run the full homebrew command because most programs prompt for sudo creds to add the application to the application folder which non-admin users cannot do. See More

InquisitiveFionnuala's Experience

That it lives in user space has serious negative consequences for security. See More

Top Pro

Recipes are simple and easy to use

The recipes themselves are Ruby scripts and are small, simple to understand and easy to create and modify. See More

Top Con

"Casks" often must be updated manually (e.g. Firefox, Transmission)

This contradicts the need for a package manager. See More

MemorableProserpina's Experience

Homebrew is newer and I will give it that. However it lacks the number of packages as of MacPorts and also according to MacPorts people, it is following in the same path that they did quite a few years earlier. The biggest benefit or pro of Homebrew is that it uses software that comes already with MacOS. This can prove to be problematic according to the MacPorts users. Another issue with the fact that you do not need a 'sudo' password and it installing all the software in /usr/local by default. See More

Top Pro

Does not require using sudo

One of the things to like about Homebrew is that it refuses to run things under sudo most of the time. This is a great policy, but it causes issues when you want to create symlinks or install in places that SIP has changed permissions on. See More

Top Con

May cause issues when trying to create symlinks or installing in places where SIP has changed permissions

One of the things to like about Homebrew is that it refuses to run things under sudo most of the time. This is a great policy, but it causes issues when you want to create symlinks or install in places that SIP has changed permissions on. (Alternatively, you could install Homebrew somewhere other than /usr/local, but that might break various packages that depend on having stuff in and relative to /usr/local/.) See More

ReflectiveBasamum's Experience

"Updating Homebrew..." I don't care, install my package now. The author of homebrew loves wasting everybodies time, and the weird instistance on separating binary and source packages is a needless frustration. Use anything else, it's better. See More

Top Pro

Open source

Top Con

Not as many packages as Macports

Homebrew has about 4,000, while Macports has about 20,000. See More

HumorousAwilix's Experience

i don't need a babysitter See More

Top Pro

Tool for easily finding packages available

Braumeister is an easy to use online tool used for browsing Homebrew packages. See More

Top Con

Command line tools for Xcode required

Homebrew requires either the Xcode Command Line Tools or a full installation of Xcode. See More

EncouragingCelaeno's Experience

when i realized i couldn't install 'pip' i knew this wasn't for me. not enough packages See More

Top Pro

Well documented

Top Con

Annoying for updates

Super annoying for upgrades when OS X updates or when some formulas do. It's a pretty janky system (perhaps the formula's problems more than homebrew itself), despite being super convenient. There are many occasions where you simply don't want to upgrade things out of fear of wasting hours fixing things. See More

MagicalTuriacus's Experience

It just works! Awesome! See More

Top Pro

Homebrew tries very hard to use existing tools and libraries

Homebrew’s recipes try very hard to use the existing tools and libraries in OS/X, so they tend to build much faster and require fewer dependent libraries. See More

Top Con

Instals binary-only distributions "casks" in caskroom folder

Some apps will complain about this (like adguard) and insist on moving it to an applications folder. See More

kaznovac's Experience

absolute nightmare to remove package (formula in their jargon) with all of it's dependancies that are no longer needed See More

Top Pro

Requires less maintenance than Macports

Macports seems to be able to get into a bad state where new packages are unable to be installed, or installed software was unable to be updated. This simply hasn't happened with Homebrew. In addition to not having to deal with corruption problems, Homebrew installs packages in userland. Not requiring root to install software is a big win. See More

Top Con

Works best on Mac

While you may be using a Mac now, it's best to be able to use your package manager on Linux if needed. And Linuxbrew isn't great. Recommend nix instead. See More

Top Pro

Less maintenance than Macports

Macports seems to be able to get into a bad state where new packages are unable to be installed, or installed software was unable to be updated. This simply hasn't happened with Homebrew. In addition to not having to deal with corruption problems, Homebrew installs packages in userland. Not requiring root to install software is a big win. See More

Top Con

Does not support El Capitan

A large number of perfectly good Apple machines are blocked from upgrading past El Capitan. Because Homebrew has begun to break under El Cap, its usefulness is significantly diminished. See More

Top Pro

Builds quickly and requires few dependencies

Homebrew as much as possible uses already existing libraries and tools to install software thus making builds quick and requiring few dependencies. See More

The Best 1 of 9 OptionsWhy?

My Recommendation for Homebrew

My Recommendation for Homebrew

Easy to setup and use

Installs to a shared location (`/usr/local/`)

Quick access to a large repository of open source software

Cannot remove unneeded dependancies

Builds are quick and requires few dependencies

Multiple versions of the same package aren't widely supported

Unintrusive

Relies on outdated system libs

Great community support

Command line tools for XCode required

Little maintenance needed

Does not require 'sudo' but DOES require user to be in sudo list of users

Recipes are simple and easy to use

"Casks" often must be updated manually (e.g. Firefox, Transmission)

Does not require using sudo

May cause issues when trying to create symlinks or installing in places where SIP has changed permissions

Open source

Not as many packages as Macports

Tool for easily finding packages available

Command line tools for Xcode required

Well documented

Annoying for updates

Homebrew tries very hard to use existing tools and libraries

Instals binary-only distributions "casks" in caskroom folder

Requires less maintenance than Macports

Works best on Mac

Less maintenance than Macports

Does not support El Capitan

Builds quickly and requires few dependencies

Fragile

Open Source

8 Other Options Considered

My Recommendation for Homebrew Cask

My Recommendation for Homebrew Cask

Software no longer needed by anything (orphans) is hard to delete

Extends Homebrew

The developers are hostile to the users reporting issues

Active project

Silently spies on the user by default

Manage graphical applications through the command line

Requires Xcode

Duplicate apps found in brew may cause issue

Goes against Apple's design choices with macOS and breaks the system

My Recommendation for Nix package manager

My Recommendation for Nix package manager

Can keep around several profiles for you to use

Steep learning curve

You always and atomically get an isolated consistent profile

Cannot handle filetypes that have different semantics across different versions

Packages installed with Nix don't overlap with packages installed in /usr/local

Does not require root priviledges

It's easy to revert any change in your environment

Uses binary caches (that are provided) so you don't have to build anything locally

Packages don't change after they are built

Easy to install

Very easy to share compiled binaries between machines

My Recommendation for pkgsrc

My Recommendation for pkgsrc

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

Not so broadly used on MacOS as compared with MacPorts

Adapted for use on over a dozen different operating systems

Can't install some packages

Both binary packages and source build possible

Relatively complicated setup and installation

Offering tooling for backporting fixes

Does not need Xcode command line tools or Xcode.

Installs and works in the same way as MacPorts

Works easily with Ansible

Easy installation if you use 3rd party scripts

My Recommendation for MacPorts

My Recommendation for MacPorts

Nice variants system

New Packages and Updates take time

Provides a consistent experience across OS X versions

Bad at limiting dependencies

Has many more packages than its competitors

Downloads unneeded libraries duplicating functionality already provided by Apple's libraries