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 In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user.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