On 2016-08-22 09:30, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > I wonder if extending an obsolete feature is worth the effort. > In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user.
Well, I created the patch in November 2015 but never submitted it.
Yesterday someone in #gentoo-dev also asked about that false-positive
warning...
Yes, EAPI >=6 doesn't have this problem anymore. But many system
packages won't migrate to EAPI=6 very soon. So this irritating warning
will stay for the next years if we don't fix it. And because it is an
easy fix... isn't it?
>> + : $(( EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES++ ))
>
> Why not simply:
> (( EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES++ ))
When I created the patch I tried to use the same coding style. See
> : $(( count++ ))
two lines above.
Can I keep this or should I change?
>> + if [[ ${old_n_applied_patches} -lt
>> ${EPATCH_N_APPLIED_PATCHES} ]]; then
>> + has epatch_user_death_notice
>> ${EBUILD_DEATH_HOOKS} || EBUILD_DEATH_HOOKS+=" epatch_user_death_notice"
>
> Please keep lines no wider than 80 character positions.
OK, I'll split the "has epatch_..." line after the "||".
Thanks for reviewing.
--
Regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
