debian: address minor packaging feedback

[obbardc]

Fix minor packaging issues which came up during review:

• format control files with wrap-and-sort -vast
• bump Standards-Version to latest (forky 4.7.4, trixie 4.7.2, resolute 4.7.4)
• should we add something like Conflicts: camx-dkms, iris-vpu-dkms, kgsl-dkms; need to check

This should be done after existing feature PRs are merged; others may come up and I will update the list above if I discover any more.

[bjordiscollaku]

On the Conflicts: camx-dkms, iris-vpu-dkms, kgsl-dkms item here, some context from #54.

I did add exactly that to the linux-image package in #54, then took it back out before merge, so the question is still open and this is the right place for it. Two reasons it came out:

It named camx-dkms and iris-vpu-dkms, which the kernel does not bundle. Only kgsl is in debian/dkms-modules, so for those two the package would have asserted an incompatibility it has no basis for, and made them uninstallable with nothing shipped in their place.

kgsl-dkms ships /usr/lib/modprobe.d/kgsl-dkms.conf, which carries options msm skip_gpu=1 and softdep msm post: msm_kgsl. Conflicting with that package would remove the config the bundled module needs for the DRM msm driver to leave the GPU alone. So the relationship and the question of what else a -dkms package ships beyond the .ko are really the same decision.

Worth noting there is no dpkg level file overlap either: kgsl-dkms ships sources under /usr/src, its runtime .ko lands in updates/dkms/ and is not dpkg tracked, and the bundled copy goes to extra/. depmod ranks updates/ above extra/, so the two already coexist without clobbering each other.

Happy to implement whichever way you want it, generated from the manifest so it cannot drift from what is actually bundled.