Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Show death notice only when user patches were really applied
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:16:51
Message-Id: 22458.57100.705640.712139@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Show death notice only when user patches were really applied by Thomas Deutschmann
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 In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user.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

Replies