I'm not happy that this creates an /etc/opt directory. Apart from that I'm happy with the way you're doing most things. If another maintainer will 'shipit' for this PR then I'm good to merge.
There's little I can do about /etc/opt; there's hard-coded paths in the binary. The only workaround I can imagine is patching the binary and truncate those strings, but I'm not sure that's a viable solution.
Vaelatern requested changes on this pull request.
These are small items but should be changed.
The package makes me unhappy, but I am happier that it is `repository=nonfree`, so I will give this the go ahead.
@the-maldridge ping.
> @@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Template file for 'brother-brscan4'
+pkgname=brother-brscan4
+version=0.4.4
+revision=2
`revision=1`
> +maintainer="Martijn van Buul <martijn.van.buul@gmail.com>"
+license="custom"
+homepage="http://support.brother.com/"
+repository="nonfree"
+nopie=yes
+_mylibrary="libsane-brother4.so.1.0.7"
+conf_files="/etc/opt/brother/scanner/brscan4/Brsane4.ini /etc/opt/brother/scanner/brscan4/brsanenetdevice4.cfg /etc/opt/brother/scanner/brscan4/models4/*.ini"
+
+if [ "$XBPS_TARGET_MACHINE" = "x86_64" ]; then
+ _debpkgid="3.amd64"
+ distfiles="http://download.brother.com/welcome/dlf006645/brscan4-${version}-${_debpkgid}.deb"
+ checksum=5dd9edcc670a19b66882932290bf867de1669855f05b0d340c5817b69f104659
+ _deblibdir="usr/lib64"
+elif [ "$XBPS_TARGET_MACHINE" = "i686" ]; then
+ _debpkgid="3.i386"
+ distfiles="http://download.brother.com/welcome/dlf006646/brscan4-${version}-${_debpkgid}.deb"
This line is the same in both. Please deduplicate.
> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+In order to access networked scanners and multifunctionals, the SANE backend
+must be configured using
+
Spurious newline. Remove.
> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+In order to access networked scanners and multifunctionals, the SANE backend
+must be configured using
+
+brsaneconfig4
+
And here.
pienjo commented on this pull request.
> +maintainer="Martijn van Buul <martijn.van.buul@gmail.com>"
+license="custom"
+homepage="http://support.brother.com/"
+repository="nonfree"
+nopie=yes
+_mylibrary="libsane-brother4.so.1.0.7"
+conf_files="/etc/opt/brother/scanner/brscan4/Brsane4.ini /etc/opt/brother/scanner/brscan4/brsanenetdevice4.cfg /etc/opt/brother/scanner/brscan4/models4/*.ini"
+
+if [ "$XBPS_TARGET_MACHINE" = "x86_64" ]; then
+ _debpkgid="3.amd64"
+ distfiles="http://download.brother.com/welcome/dlf006645/brscan4-${version}-${_debpkgid}.deb"
+ checksum=5dd9edcc670a19b66882932290bf867de1669855f05b0d340c5817b69f104659
+ _deblibdir="usr/lib64"
+elif [ "$XBPS_TARGET_MACHINE" = "i686" ]; then
+ _debpkgid="3.i386"
+ distfiles="http://download.brother.com/welcome/dlf006646/brscan4-${version}-${_debpkgid}.deb"
I assume you mean the "distfiles" line? They are not the same; the URL is different ( ".../dlf00664**5**/.." versus ".../dlf00664**6**/..").
@Vaelatern
Thank you for your review - I'll address them. I fully understand the problem with this package - this package doesn't make me happy either. In fact, having bought this printer doesn't make me happy in retrospect.
I won't hold any grudges if this PR gets rejected because the package is just too dirty and doesn't meet the expected quality level. I wasn't even sure whether I should PR it or not because of this, but on the other hand I was hoping to save someone else some time.
Maybe packages like these shouldn't be in the official repository. I've encountered other packages currently in the void-packages repo that are just as bad, if not worse (including brother-brscan3).