Package: sponsorship-requests Followup-For: Bug #998041 Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Lintian's still unhappy: (Please integrate lintian in your workflow, as those lintian remarks had been found in previous reviews already.) I've added some remarks. E: makedeb: extended-description-is-empty W: makedeb: description-synopsis-starts-with-article W: makedeb source: no-debian-changes W: makedeb: no-manual-page usr/bin/makedeb-makepkg W: makedeb: no-manual-page usr/bin/makepkg-template W: makedeb: script-not-executable [etc/makepkg.conf] -- Remark: possibly this file should not be a script! X: makedeb source: debian-watch-does-not-check-gpg-signature [debian/watch] P: makedeb source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 12 P: makedeb source: silent-on-rules-requiring-root [debian/control] P: makedeb source: trailing-whitespace debian/rules (line 4) P: makedeb source: trailing-whitespace debian/rules (line 5) P: makedeb source: trailing-whitespace debian/rules (line 6) P: makedeb source: update-debian-copyright 2021 vs 2022 [debian/copyright:11] X: makedeb source: upstream-metadata-file-is-missing Beside: - /etc/makepkg.conf: -you are packaging arch:all but have hard-coded arch-dependent settings for amd64. Is this intentional? -I don't think that should be a script needing a shebang, should it? - d/makedeb-docs.docs d/README d/README.source should not be needed (and they do not contain useful information) - Somewhere in the documentation it still says "the modern packaging tool for Debian archives", which needs still to be changed, accordingly to your message in #998039#32. Disclaimer: I'm not going to sponsor this package. I believe that makedeb creates packages in a way that might cause problems for our users. (e.g as laid out in 998039#22; it makes dependency handling a user-problem, which is a core task of a packaging management system. So I thinkg it needs still some development before it should be uploaded. I was playing with makedeb, but unfortunatly with very mixed result: For example, I test-built "moonlight-qt" (selected because it was on the frontpage of the homepage [¹] and not arch-all generates this Depends: line for the generated binary package: > Depends: libegl1-mesa-dev, libgl1-mesa-dev, libopus-dev, libqt5svg5-dev, > libsdl2-dev, libsdl2-ttf-dev, libssl-dev, libavcodec-dev, libva-dev, > libvdpau-dev, libxkbcommon-dev, qt5-qmake, qtbase5-dev, qtdeclarative5-dev, > qtquickcontrols2-5-dev, wayland-protocols, qml-module-qtquick-controls2, > qml-module-qtquick-layouts, qml-module-qtquick-window2, qml-module-qtquick2, > ffmpeg (note that it would also depend on qt5-default, but I had to edit it because this package is gone in sid, and I used a sid container for my tests.) Another package, zotero, claims "zotero is not available for the 'x86_64' architecture.**", and I found many others with the exact same problem... As those working using "x86_64" in the PKGBUILD and those which don't "amd64", makes me wonder if the PKGBUILD used or how it is parsed by makedeb is stable. Also, my i386 (on amd64 hardware -- Multiarch) chroot claims to be 64 bit... I guess there are bugs here... Also (IIRC gh (some github tool)) created an arch:all package which having arch-dependent binaries. (Frankly, I ran accross so many broken PKGBUILD recipes, all sorts of errors... Is there (automated) QA?) -- tobi [¹] https://mpr.makedeb.org/
