Here we go again. The source of the problems in in toy package managers (and I include all language package managers here) is not just the package managers themselves, it's the "version soup" philosophy they present to the user. Not daring to risk displeasing the user, they will take orders akin to "I'd like version 1.2.3 of package a, version 31.4.1q of package b, version 0.271 of package c, version 141 of package d...", barely giving a thought to inter-version dependencies of the result.

Unfortunately, software does not work this way. You cannot just ask for an arbitrary combination of versions and rely on it to work. Conflicts and diamond dependencies lurk everywhere.

Sensible package systems (see specifically Nix & nixpkgs) have realized this and follow a "distribution" model where they periodically settle upon a collection of versions of packages which generally are known to work pretty well together (nixpkgs in particular tries to ensure packages' test suites pass in any environment they're going to be installed in). A responsible package distribution will also take it upon themselves to maintain these versions with (often backported) security fixes so that it's no worry sticking with a selection of versions for ~6 months.

However, I can't say I'm particularly surprised that these systems tend to lose out in popularity to the seductively "easy" systems that try to promise the user the moon.