Dnia 22 sierpnia 2016 13:16:28 CEST, Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> napisał(a): >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > >> 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 In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user.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? > >Sure, it is an easy fix. However, it is not without cost, as it adds >another variable to global scope of all ebuilds inheriting eutils. >Even in EAPI 6 where epatch_user will not be used.
But then, epatch shouldn't be used either. > >>>> + : $(( 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. > >git blame point to the following commit: >2975c21ee (Mike Frysinger 2010-01-09 20:06:24 +0000 595) : $(( count++ >)) > >Looks like this was missed during eclass review back then. (I cannot >find anything in the mailing list archives, though. Can anyone provide >a pointer?) vapier and review? Are you asking seriously? > >> Can I keep this or should I change? > >*shrug* It's a tiny issue. > >Ulrich -- Best regards, Michał Górny (by phone)
