Hey Guillem!
What do you mean by hardcoded dependencies?
> This also implies much
> of the current automatic handling found in, say, debhelper and related
> tools is skipped, which does not look would make it easier to generate
> properly integrated packages.
makedeb doesn't use the native debian format and I believe that's a design choice, instead it uses the alternate PKGBUILD format, inspired by Arch Linux. I looked at the issues you mentioned and I can see your point. However, isn't one of the core principles of Linux freedom of choice? This is simply another way to package for Debian.
Thanks for your feedback, I will talk with the upstream maintainer :)
- Leo
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:11:38 +0200 Guillem Jover <
guillem@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 15:02:19 -0700, Leo Puvilland wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: Leo Puvilland <
lpuvilla0001@mymail.lausd.net>
> >
> > * Package name : makedeb
> > Version : 7.1.2+bugfix1
> > Upstream Author : Hunter Wittenborn <
hunter@hwittenborn.com>
> > * URL :
https://makedeb.hunterwittenborn.com> > * License : GPLv2
> > Programming Lang: Bash
> > Description : The modern packaging tool for Debian archives.
>
> Hmm, I think I take issue with this description. :)
>
> While I can agree there's much that can be changed in dpkg and
> related tooling such as debhelper to improve packaging workflows and
> make this a more integrated and easy thing to approach for new people,
> I'm not seeing how makedeb is neither "The" nor "modern" tool for
> this. I feel it suffers from pretty much the same problems as fpm
> (see <
https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm/issues/409> or
> <
https://bugs.debian.org/688896>).
>
> > makedeb is a packaging tool for Debian-based systems that aims to be
> > simple and easy to use, whilst still remaining just as powerful as
> > standard Debian tooling.
>
> I'm afraid, simple here implies potentially incorrect (see the comments
> on the links about ignoring dependency information from shlibs/symbols
> files f.ex), checking the upstream repo I see dependencies are being
> hardcoded, which seem even worse than I'd expect. This also implies much
> of the current automatic handling found in, say, debhelper and related
> tools is skipped, which does not look would make it easier to generate
> properly integrated packages.
>
> > makedeb uses a packaging format that's aiming to be simpler and easier
> > to get a hold of than standard Debian packaging, so adding this
> > program would help more users begin packaging for Debian.
>
> I think this makes the packaging experience even more confusing, as
> these people might still need to have to deal with proper Debian
> packaging anyway.
>
> Thanks,
> Guillem
>
>