1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 2016-08-22 09:30, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
4 |
>> I wonder if extending an obsolete feature is worth the effort. |
5 |
>> In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user. |
6 |
|
7 |
> Well, I created the patch in November 2015 but never submitted it. |
8 |
> Yesterday someone in #gentoo-dev also asked about that |
9 |
> false-positive warning... |
10 |
|
11 |
> Yes, EAPI >=6 doesn't have this problem anymore. But many system |
12 |
> packages won't migrate to EAPI=6 very soon. So this irritating |
13 |
> warning will stay for the next years if we don't fix it. And because |
14 |
> it is an easy fix... isn't it? |
15 |
|
16 |
Sure, it is an easy fix. However, it is not without cost, as it adds |
17 |
another variable to global scope of all ebuilds inheriting eutils. |
18 |
Even in EAPI 6 where epatch_user will not be used. |
19 |
|
20 |
>>> + : $(( EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES++ )) |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Why not simply: |
23 |
>> (( EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES++ )) |
24 |
|
25 |
> When I created the patch I tried to use the same coding style. See |
26 |
|
27 |
>> : $(( count++ )) |
28 |
|
29 |
> two lines above. |
30 |
|
31 |
git blame point to the following commit: |
32 |
2975c21ee (Mike Frysinger 2010-01-09 20:06:24 +0000 595) : $(( count++ )) |
33 |
|
34 |
Looks like this was missed during eclass review back then. (I cannot |
35 |
find anything in the mailing list archives, though. Can anyone provide |
36 |
a pointer?) |
37 |
|
38 |
> Can I keep this or should I change? |
39 |
|
40 |
*shrug* It's a tiny issue. |
41 |
|
42 |
Ulrich |