Make it work in 2024

[maple3142]

To make the current version work in Arch Linux with Python 3.13 (2024/12) it needs some changes:

1. pkg_resources is available by default in 3.12+, so it is recommended to use packaging instead (source)
2. makepkg --packagelist can output multiple lines when debug is enabled in makepkg.conf
3. namcap does not support license with custom: prefix now, need to use LicenseRef- instead

[anntzer]

This looks mostly fine, except that ArchWiki states that custom:... is also acceptable (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#license). Is that a bug in namcap or a bug in the docs?
Also, please line-wrap to 80 characters where possible.

[maple3142]

Current behavior is that custom:... will error:

> cat PKGBUILD
pkgname=testpkg
pkgver=1
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="Test"
arch=('x86_64')
license=('custom:x')

> makepkg
==> Making package: testpkg 1-1 (Mon 06 Jan 2025 09:46:27 PM CST)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving sources...
==> Extracting sources...
==> Entering fakeroot environment...
==> Tidying install...
  -> Removing libtool files...
  -> Purging unwanted files...
  -> Removing static library files...
  -> Stripping unneeded symbols from binaries and libraries...
  -> Compressing man and info pages...
==> Checking for packaging issues...
==> Creating package "testpkg"...
  -> Generating .PKGINFO file...
  -> Generating .BUILDINFO file...
  -> Generating .MTREE file...
  -> Compressing package...
==> Leaving fakeroot environment.
==> Finished making: testpkg 1-1 (Mon 06 Jan 2025 09:46:28 PM CST)
> namcap testpkg-1-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.zst
testpkg W: No ELF files and not an "any" package
testpkg E: custom:x is not a valid SPDX license identifier. See https://spdx.org/licenses/ for valid identifiers, or prefix the identifier with 'LicenseRef-', if it is custom.

And https://rfc.archlinux.page/0016-spdx-license-identifiers/ metions this:

How will custom licenses be specified in the license key? The specification denotes a LicenseRef- prefix to be used with custom license identifiers, though it has been voiced by some that the use of the existing custom: notation may be preferable.

So custom: prefix might be allowed in future but currently not allowed after this spdx license rfc.

[anntzer]

Thanks!