ccls VS nixpkgs

Then it would just have a dependency on Clang, and you couldn't use Emacs at all (since you can't use Clang).

AFAIK, the only alternative to the clangd language server is ccls: https://github.com/MaskRay/ccls

The base config adds about 15 lines (I have extra settings adding another 15 lines), then each language server adds a few lines per augroup. Example config for ccls.

"" https://github.com/MaskRay/ccls/wiki/vim-lsp if executable('ccls') augroup lsp_ccls ....

Try ccls instead, it has setup instructions for many LSP clients in the wiki: https://github.com/MaskRay/ccls

vim-lsp and ccls, supertab for auto-completion

these days a good lsp plugin will get you 90% of what you need for most languages and codebases. once youve got that set up its just a matter of picking lsp servers. i use ccls for c/c++. if you set it up and its not giving you hints for godot classes you probably have to point ccls at the proper godot-cpp subdirs using a .ccls file in your project root.

I installed ccls using snap for ubuntu.

C++/C language server: ccls

ccls: https://github.com/MaskRay/ccls/issues/798

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

In this specific case, nix uses fetchFromGitHub to download the source archive, which are generated by GitHub for the specified revision[1]. Arch seems to just download the tarball from the releases page[2].

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/3c2fdd0a4e6396fc310a6e...

[2]: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/ib...