exa: 0.10.1 -> unstable-2023-03-01

[moni-dz]

Description of changes

same reason as last time:

exa hasn't seen a release for 2 years

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • [] x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[moni-dz]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 240490 run on aarch64-darwin 1

2 packages built:

• exa
• exa.man

[moni-dz]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 240490 run on x86_64-darwin 1

2 packages built:

• exa
• exa.man

[sersorrel]

There's at least one regression in unreleased exa versions: ogham/exa#1198

What was new that merited the update in nixpkgs, ooi?

[SuperSandro2000]

exa didn't have a release for a longer time and cherry-picking multiple patches is cumbersome.
Maybe we should mark it broken/replace it with lsd?

[sersorrel]

lsd looks interesting, but given exa still basically works I think removing it would be disruptive for no real reason. (if it were a real drop-in replacement I could see the argument, but it looks like the default lsd colour scheme is unreadable in my terminal.)