1 |
On 2016-08-22 09:30, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> I wonder if extending an obsolete feature is worth the effort. |
3 |
> In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user. |
4 |
|
5 |
Well, I created the patch in November 2015 but never submitted it. |
6 |
Yesterday someone in #gentoo-dev also asked about that false-positive |
7 |
warning... |
8 |
|
9 |
Yes, EAPI >=6 doesn't have this problem anymore. But many system |
10 |
packages won't migrate to EAPI=6 very soon. So this irritating warning |
11 |
will stay for the next years if we don't fix it. And because it is an |
12 |
easy fix... isn't it? |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
>> + : $(( EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES++ )) |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Why not simply: |
18 |
> (( EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES++ )) |
19 |
|
20 |
When I created the patch I tried to use the same coding style. See |
21 |
|
22 |
> : $(( count++ )) |
23 |
|
24 |
two lines above. |
25 |
|
26 |
Can I keep this or should I change? |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
>> + if [[ ${old_n_applied_patches} -lt ${EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES} ]]; then |
30 |
>> + has epatch_user_death_notice ${EBUILD_DEATH_HOOKS} || EBUILD_DEATH_HOOKS+=" epatch_user_death_notice" |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Please keep lines no wider than 80 character positions. |
33 |
|
34 |
OK, I'll split the "has epatch_..." line after the "||". |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
Thanks for reviewing. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Regards, |
42 |
Thomas |