Anyone using a mac for software development has probably run into the need for some gnu/open source software that isn't pre-packaged. One of the great failings of Mac OSX is it's lack of a real package manager. Luckily, users stepped up and built some solutions: Fink, MacPorts, and HomeBrew.
I've never used fink, but I hear it's pretty good. Being also a debian/ubuntu guy, I'm familiar with apt-get so it's probably a decent tool... but having no direct experience with it I can't really comment.
This brings me to the two tools I HAVE used: Macports and HomeBrew. I started off with macports because it was the one that had the packages I was looking for. On advice from folks I was working with (I believe the comment was "why are you still using macports, everyone is using homebrew now"). I downloaded and started using HomeBrew, but frankly, I'm unimpressed.
As far as I can tell, the only reason anyone would use homebrew is if they stumbled across one of the web sites/blog posts with the raving fanboys flipping the bird to all the uneducated macports users. When digging around, I did find this fairly objective blog post which leads me to believe that homebrew is really...not that different. The biggest difference I see is that macports has almost everything I want, whereas homebrew is missing huge quantities of useful software, so I ended up requiring macports anyway.
I like the idea that homebrew will apparently use binary packages in some situations and frankly, I don't understand why that isn't the standard. After all, debian and redhat have been doing this for years and it's much more efficient that wasting your user's time recompiling for a tightly controlled platform. Anyway, my advice is macports works for me, homebrew also works, and they seem to both work together... so it really doesn't matter which one you use, but you'll still need macports anyway because homebrew is missing about 6000 packages that are already in macports.