Hello, Thank you for the review. ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Nicolas Goaziou skribis: > >> I used glib-or-gtk-build-system because, somewhere in the Makefile, >> there's a call to `gtk-update-icon-cache'. However, since that command >> cannot be found during the build process, I skip it with >> UPDATE_CACHE=FALSE. So, should I leave the package as-is, or add >> a "gtk+" input, or simply downgrade to gnu-build-system? > > Since it uses Qt, perhaps we’d better use ‘gnu-build-system’ (or > ‘cmake-build-system’?) no? Would we lose something? cmake-build-system is a path I already walked. Using cmake is insufficient to build the package, as it fails during the install phase. IIUC, the Makefile is a wrapper that calls the cmake command, which, in turn, generates a new make target that the initial make call can process... The new target is responsible for, at the very least, generating the translation files. About gnu-build-system, I don't know if we loose something. It builds with it. I can run the application. I thought that calling gtk-update-icon-cache was somehow a clue that glib-or-gtk-build-system would be needed, but I was wrong, if I interpret correctly your question. The updated patch uses gnu-build-system. > FWIW I trimmed the description a bit OK. > and moved ‘cmake’ to ‘native-inputs’. Maybe the linter could suggest it. It already told me that "qttools" input should be moved there, but didn't complain about "cmake". > Also, a couple of #:use-module were missing. Oops. It probably happened when I moved the package definition from my incubator to music.scm. About the bundled freetype library: it is skipped per the cmake option. Should we also delete it from source in a snippet or is it fine as-is? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou 0x80A93738