Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Kei Kebreau writes: > >>>> + (arguments >>>> + `(#:configure-flags >>>> + (list "--disable-gtk" "--enable-qt" >> >> In reply to your later email: I used Qt instead of the default GTK+ 2 >> because of a personal preference, but apparently it's possible to enable >> both to let users choose what they prefer. > > Would this retain references to *both* toolkits? Wouldn’t this make the > package much bigger than it otherwise would be? > > What’s the smaller variant…? > Enabling both toolkits would retain references to both, but it isn't much larger than enabling only Qt. That said, a GTK+ 2 exclusive build is smaller than a Qt exclusive one by a large margin: Excluding plugins: * Both toolkits: 1495.1 MiB * Qt only: 1344.2 MiB * GTK+ 2 only: 538.0 MiB Including plugins: * Both toolkits: 1736.2 MiB * Qt only: 1734.9 MiB * GTK+ 2 only: 1126.6 MiB >>>> + #:phases >>>> + (modify-phases %standard-phases >>>> + (add-after 'install 'unpack-plugins >>>> + (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys) >>>> + (let ((plugins (assoc-ref inputs >>>> "audacious-plugins"))) >>>> + (invoke "tar" "xvf" plugins) >>>> + (chdir (string-append "audacious-plugins-" >>>> ,version)) >>> >>> It's not wrong, and I know this saves (with-directory-excursion)s down >>> the road, but brr. :-) >>> >> >> Is it the lack of clarity in later phases that's undesirable? > > It’s a littly icky to have phases modify global state (other than the > files they operate on), because it is no longer enough to look at just > the phase of interest. If it can be avoided without making things too > ugly I’d prefer to avoid “chdir” here. Understood. Adding a few "with-directory-excursion" calls isn't a bad addition here. I've attached a new patch with all three toolkit options (Qt only, GTK+ 2 only, both) included for testing purposes.