>>>>> 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 In EAPI 6, epatch_user has been replaced by eapply_user.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.

>>> +		: $(( 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?)

> Can I keep this or should I change?

*shrug* It's a tiny issue.

Ulrich