repology-updater VS lk

For comparing package versions across distros, I like https://repology.org/. Fedora's official online package search is https://packages.fedoraproject.org/.

fwiw nixpkgs has significantly more packages than arch (including the aur), and those packages are also significantly more up to date. No other repo comes close to nixpkgs in this regard. This has been the case for quite some years now.

https://repology.org/

I think available package number is a bit of an exaggeration. looking at the statistics, the most packages are on nixOS. but there are other topics such as number of maintainers, update and stability. so middle ground is debian testing and arch. i suggest repology.org to look stats

I believe it likely was a comparision in number of packages, currently nixpkgs outnumber AUR (although it also contains packages that are part of other languages): https://repology.org/

I guess the modern equivalent of that would be https://repology.org/

Although the focus is on the version aspect, so descriptions are a bit hidden and I'm not sure they're searchable.

I know that "number of packages" isn't a perfect metric, but going by that Nixpkgs is the largest (see https://repology.org/).

to find a distro still supporting that version you can use https://repology.org/ or https://pkgs.org

FreeBSD also has its own ports system which has 29678 (source: repology.org) packaged project.

According to repology nix is third place in term of the number of maintainers.

lk lives here: https://github.com/jamescoleuk/lk

I grew frustrated with the compromises of makefiles for this and over the years I wrote a couple of alternatives, run_lib[1] and lk[2]. Now I write files full of the bash functions I need and use lk to explore and execute them. I.e. it's a consistent interface accross projects.

[1] https://github.com/jamescoleuk/lk

[2] https://github.com/jamescoleuk/run_lib