Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dlor 1094 days ago
We're rapidly approaching 10k packages, here's today's count:

/ # apk update fetch https://packages.wolfi.dev/os/aarch64/APKINDEX.tar.gz [https://packages.wolfi.dev/os] OK: 9494 distinct packages available

We're definitely coming at this from a different angle from Nix, but the approaches are pretty complementary. I'm a big fan of all the work they do.

musl vs. glibc is one of the big departures we make from Alpine though, we use glibc everywhere because of those issues you pointed out.

2 comments

> OK: 9494 distinct packages available

I opened that apkindex file and it had duplicate entries for a ton of packages with different versions, taking a look at https://github.com/wolfi-dev/os I only see about 840 yaml files which I assume define the packages. I don't think claiming to have 10k packages when only 10% of them are actually different pieces of software is a good claim to make. Nixpkgs would have millions of packages if we added up every single unique package from every revision.

The real number is probably somewhere in the middle - one yaml file can define many packages - see the gcc or clang or argocd ones for examples of that.

glibc explodes into a few dozen, for example.

I think it's more subpackages such as -dev, -lib and -doc variants. These are defined as part of the parent package but count as distinct packages.
Even so, I did a quick search on repology and Nix derivations with multiple outputs (the nix lingo analogous to the subpackages you mentioned) are counted as a single package. For example, bash has 5 outputs but only counts for 1 package in the 85k figure, so I think comparing 900 packages to 85k is a valid comparison.

Anyway, this is all besides the point I was trying to make which is that I don't see why I should use _yet another_ software distribution that has 1% of the amount of packages found in a mature distribution that already has frequent automatic updates and bleeding-edge software revisions.

We needed Wolfi to be able to create minimal (distroless if you like) container images based on glibc with 0 vulnerabilities. Turns out a lot of other people are interested in Wolfi for various reasons, and we're more than happy to work with them.

You definitely don't need to use Wolfi! But I would say, if you run containers you might want to check out Chainguard Images: https://github.com/chainguard-images/images

Hey, thanks for chiming in. How do they complement each other?