Subject: [bug#57757] [PATCH] gnu: Add sbcl-stumpwm-pamixer

From: Trev <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 11:22:20 -0700

Maxime Devos <[email-masked]> writes:

> On 19-09-2022 19:47, Trevor Richards wrote:
>> +      (arguments
>> +       `(#:asd-systems '(:pamixer)
>> +         #:phases
>> +         ,#~(modify-phases %standard-phases
>> +             (add-after 'unpack 'patch-pamixer
>> +               (lambda _
>> +                 (substitute* "pamixer.lisp"
>> +                   (("\"pamixer \"")
>> +                    (string-append
>> +                     "\"" #$pamixer "/bin/pamixer \""))))))))
>
> To support --with-input transformations, you can't do #$input, you have 
> to do #$(this-package-input "pamixer") instead -- or better, don't 
> depend on input labels, by using (search-input-file inputs 
> "bin/pamixer") instead.
>

Thanks for the feedback. It's hard to tell when a gexp is appropriate
and where it's not, or how to properly evaluate it all at the right
time. The current patch builds. Is this problematic in the sense that
it's using some reference to #$pamixer that is not actually a part of
the build environment?

Note I had to use a quasiqote and unquote for the `gexp` to work.
Transforming the arguments into a list so I would not have to do this
breaks the #:asd-systems keyword value somehow.

When I observe the source code it's kinda all over the place when it
comes to using gexps in some way or when not to.

I will patch this again and document a note about this but if there's
any clarifying documentation I would happily read it. Apologies in
advance if I have missed existing documentation.

-- 

Trev : 0FB7 D06B 4A2A F07E AD5B  1169 183B 6306 8AA1 D206