Subject: [bug#69923] arcan-sdl

From: David Elsing <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:23:51 +0000

Hello,

Ahmad Draidi <[email-masked]> writes:

> Is there a reason to keep it around and not use arcan? Perhaps it should be converted to an output for the main package instead, if
> there's a good reason?

I don't know what the motivation was to make a separate package with
SDL1 and just looked why the build failed. The main package is built
with SDL2, maybe that's the reason? Here is the original issue where
arcan was added, you should probably ask them:
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/34189.

Best,
David