CuteVim VS nixpkgs

BTW you should package your emacs config file with the emacs APE to do a cuteemacs, to carry your config files and everything in a portable binary: https://github.com/csdvrx/CuteVim

Another idea: have you considered that the "program that would be run by .bashrc" to generate the "unambiguous 24-bit color capabilities" could set environment variables to communicate them? Like, if you can't stuff them in terminfo, stuff them in environment variables! Env var work well on Windows, and the configuration files of terminal programs could just use these when available to override.

It's be like adding friends to your proposed TERMVERSION: TERMSETF24 etc

for vim aarch64 and x86-64 : https://github.com/csdvrx/CuteVim

just embed your own vimrc with zip following the instructions

for others, see https://cosmo.zip/pub/cosmos/bin/

> That being said, the config is definitely highly personal

I have very special preferences (like CHORDING EVERYWHERE! :) )

> it would be amazing to have a set of scripts to compile one's own personal .vimrc

Actually, I thought about people who may have different preferences!

If you want to do the same thing but with your own .vimrc, just check the "How can I make my own CuteVim APE?" section in the README (https://github.com/csdvrx/CuteVim?tab=readme-ov-file#how-can...)

This section documents the use of the refresh.sh script from https://github.com/csdvrx/CuteVim/blob/main/refresh.sh

> and related config files (really, the entire .vim directory) into a single APE.

I don't like having a billion files everywhere (like plugins/ etc) so I didn't think about that usecase, but that would be a great addition because most people have a .vim tree: even with my dislike for having too many files, I have myself a few in .vim/after/syntax/ (to apply italics to comments)

If you can contribute a script that converts your .vimrc and .vim/ tree into something that can be added to the APE, I'd be very happy to add it!

This will drop you into a shell where `tracexec` is installed.

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/310158

I don't think so. The article is probably intended for the Nix community, so the author doesn't need to convince HN that something is going on. If as an outsider you are interested then you need to look into it yourself, the community has no obligation to make their internal conflicts legible to the outside world.

As an outsider myself, it certainly looks like something is going on as more than 20 Nixpkg maintainers left in a week: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=label%3A%228.has%3...

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset

I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors

For a single file script, nix can make the package management quite easy: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/doc/languages-f...

For example,

```

Yes, Nix doesn't actually ensure that the builds are deterministic. In fact it works just fine if they aren't. There are packages in nixpkgs that aren't reproducible: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...

I'm not familiar with Bazel, but Nix in it's current form wouldn't have solved this attack. First of all, the standard mkDerivation function calls the same configure; make; make install process that made this attack possible. Nixpkgs regularly pulls in external resources (fetchUrl and friends) that are equally vulnerable to a poisoned release tarball. Checkout the comment on the current xz entry in nixpkgs https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/tools/comp...

NixOS uses a monorepo and I think everyone's love it.

I love being able to easily grep through all the packages source code and there's regularly PRs that harmonizes conventions across many packages.

Nixpkgs doesn't include the packaged software source code, so it's a lot more practical than what Debian is doing.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs