Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Show death notice only when user patches were really applied
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:49:01
Message-Id: CC0B0BCF-C74A-4A42-B7D3-656636199814@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Show death notice only when user patches were really applied by Ulrich Mueller
1 Dnia 22 sierpnia 2016 13:16:28 CEST, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a):
2 >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
3 >
4 >> On 2016-08-22 09:30, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
5 >>> I wonder if extending an obsolete feature is worth the effort.
6 >>> In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user.
7 >
8 >> Well, I created the patch in November 2015 but never submitted it.
9 >> Yesterday someone in #gentoo-dev also asked about that
10 >> false-positive warning...
11 >
12 >> Yes, EAPI >=6 doesn't have this problem anymore. But many system
13 >> packages won't migrate to EAPI=6 very soon. So this irritating
14 >> warning will stay for the next years if we don't fix it. And because
15 >> it is an easy fix... isn't it?
16 >
17 >Sure, it is an easy fix. However, it is not without cost, as it adds
18 >another variable to global scope of all ebuilds inheriting eutils.
19 >Even in EAPI 6 where epatch_user will not be used.
20
21 But then, epatch shouldn't be used either.
22
23 >
24 >>>> + : $(( EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES++ ))
25 >>>
26 >>> Why not simply:
27 >>> (( EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES++ ))
28 >
29 >> When I created the patch I tried to use the same coding style. See
30 >
31 >>> : $(( count++ ))
32 >
33 >> two lines above.
34 >
35 >git blame point to the following commit:
36 >2975c21ee (Mike Frysinger 2010-01-09 20:06:24 +0000 595) : $(( count++
37 >))
38 >
39 >Looks like this was missed during eclass review back then. (I cannot
40 >find anything in the mailing list archives, though. Can anyone provide
41 >a pointer?)
42
43 vapier and review? Are you asking seriously?
44
45 >
46 >> Can I keep this or should I change?
47 >
48 >*shrug* It's a tiny issue.
49 >
50 >Ulrich
51
52
53 --
54 Best regards,
55 Michał Górny (by phone)