holo-build VS straight.el

If I may toot my own horn: The thing that grinds my gears the most about software project websites is when they don't clearly say what the thing does, and who this is for. That's why the website for my configuration management tool (https://holocm.org) has two sections, "This is for you if..." and even more importantly "This is NOT for you if..."

wrote my own system package compiler.

Very dated and next to useless on large complex CPP codebases. Use a language server. I recommend the straight package manager. https://github.com/radian-software/straight.el

Have you tried using straight.el or the heir-apparent Elpaca? These package managers will check out the git repo of said packages, and you can easily fork them with magit and forge. That's that I do to contribute to packages.

Thank you for your time addressing all those issues and sorry if questions were misinformed - I found your advices invaluable to understand design goals of package managers in emacs.

I used straight.el, now I use Elpaca.

Doom Emacs is not a package manager. It has a package manager, which is based on Straight.el.

I have been crafting my emacs config for about 10 years. I started with vanilla and intentionally stayed away from frameworks. About two years ago I declared config bankruptcy and went down for a rewrite using use-package and straight.

First install straight.el (https://github.com/radian-software/straight.el)

ref: https://github.com/radian-software/straight.el https://github.com/jwiegley/use-package

If you use straight and override package, you'll get a lot of your desired functionality for free. Straight's docs are excellent. I started banging away on my own setup from scratch, and while not perfect, it does what I want and the total startup time is about 1.5 seconds without doing anything to try to optimize it. If you want to see it, check it out here. Like I said, there is lots of room for improvement, but it does work for me.