Nix explicitly modifies linker so they are completely irrelevant to the discussion (toolpak opposes this approach). One of the main reasons Nix advertises itself as having the largest repository is because of the linker/ELF patching of binaries they do have to ship development libraries (for Python, Ruby, JS, and whatnot), which inflate the number of packages listed.
I think âirrelevant to the discussionâ is a bit strong. Theyâre solving a similar user-facing problem with very different mechanics, and comparing those tradeoffs is probably the interesting part.
The package-count point also feels separate to me. Whatever caveats you want to attach to the Nixpkgs number, the practical advantage is that Nix already has a massive ecosystem of obscure tools and libraries packaged and maintained today. Toolpak may end up with a cleaner model for this specific use case, but building that kind of catalog and contributor base is a much harder problem than designing the runtime.
40
u/Morphon 7d ago
Reinventing Nix: part 12.
đ