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 In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user.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) |