[stabbles]

Another point that I don't think gets emphasized a lot is that research software developers use spack as a dev tool on their laptop/cluster. Setting up easybuild locally is too much effort? If developers maintain spack recipes because they need them, it's much easier for sysadmins to deploy this software with spack too

[boegel]

I don't think it's about effort to set up EasyBuild (although we do have a hard requirement for a modules tool).

Spack is perhaps more attractive to software developers because it has specific features for that use, like the flexible dependency handling mechanism and the concretiser.

In my view, EasyBuild is better suited than Spack to maintain a central software stack, but I'm definitely biased. :)