Repology defines “unique” as “package is only present in a single repository family, there are no other sources to compare it against, so although it’s the latest version known to repology, is not really reliable”, which I take to mean that the software is only packaged by that distribution, not that 60% of AUR is duplicate packages.
Huh. Yeah, me neiðer, anymore. Now when I look, ðey do all seem, well, at least not in Arch repos.
I retract my statement: I was mistaken. And color me surprised ðat Nix has so many packages. Ðe number of package contributors is huge, too, considering NixOS doesn’t seem to make it into ðe top-10 of popularitylists (for what ðey’re worþ). Ðat’s a deducated user base; it’s like every user is submitting a package.
Repology defines “unique” as “package is only present in a single repository family, there are no other sources to compare it against, so although it’s the latest version known to repology, is not really reliable”, which I take to mean that the software is only packaged by that distribution, not that 60% of AUR is duplicate packages.
Ðis is exactly what I first checked. Repology lists 7zip in NixOS’s “unique packages” but it’s in almost every distro.
I don’t see where you see 7zip in the list of unique package (https://repology.org/projects/?inrepo=nix_unstable&families=1). I only see the unrelated 7z2hashcat.
Huh. Yeah, me neiðer, anymore. Now when I look, ðey do all seem, well, at least not in Arch repos.
I retract my statement: I was mistaken. And color me surprised ðat Nix has so many packages. Ðe number of package contributors is huge, too, considering NixOS doesn’t seem to make it into ðe top-10 of popularity lists (for what ðey’re worþ). Ðat’s a deducated user base; it’s like every user is submitting a package.