RFC: Audacious 3.6 build options

[Michael Schwendt]

Audacious 3.6 has been released.

This is another chance for interested people to join and help deciding how
to proceed with the Fedora packages. I'm still looking for co-maintainers,
too, especially some who have an opinion on how to package it.

I've been building pre-releases for it via Fedora Copr
( https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mschwendt/audacious-next/ )
but don't know whether anyone else has played with those yet (minus the
MP3'n'similar plugins, of course, which are not available).


Audacious 3.6 has changed the used programming language from C to C++.
This also affects the Plugin API again, of course.


It offers new GUI options for us to choose from:

 1) The developers have introduced a Qt 5 based GUI that can coexist
    with the GTK+ GUI. It's called experimental, since it's not as
    feature-rich as the GTK+ GUI yet.

    It's a long-time goal to switch to Qt, however:
    http://redmine.audacious-media-player.org/boards/1/topics/1269

 2) The developers are unhappy with gtk3 and have returned to gtk2.
    Currently, they offer _two_ different source tarballs, as they still
    support gtk3, too, and some of the changes are not done conditionally
    in the source code.

They write:

  | Audacious can still be built with GTK3 if desired,
  | but we recommend the GTK2 variant for any desktop environment
  | other than GNOME 3.

Which _would_ open the possibility to build both, but I don't think
that would be worth the trouble (implicit conflicts in libs and packaged
files - the necessity to work around the conflicts somehow, since they
are forbidden if following Fedora's guidelines - the necessity to add
explicit inter-dependencies between packages, and most users would still
only install "audacious" and not an optional "audacious-gtk2" or such).


Enabling the Qt GUI would link Audacious core libraries with Qt by default
in addition to GTK+ and GLib. That has the potential to annoy Qt haters,
and Qt fans might be upset about the gtk3 dependency, too.

Comments, anyone?