From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3D713832E for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:16:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 31305E0B25; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kph.uni-mainz.de (mail.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.132.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 122BCE0B12 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:16:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailgate-1.kph.uni-mainz.de (mailgate-1.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.132.27]) by mail.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7MBGWIA086998 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:16:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ulm@kph.uni-mainz.de) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by mailgate-1.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7MBGV6Y037362 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:16:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ulm@kph.uni-mainz.de) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.8/8.14.2) with ESMTP id u7MBGTDO015536; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:16:29 +0200 Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id u7MBGSHU015531; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:16:28 +0200 Message-ID: <22458.57100.705640.712139@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:16:28 +0200 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Show death notice only when user patches were really applied In-Reply-To: <143d120d-0628-e255-2428-b27ec3f4f4ac@gentoo.org> References: <20160821221448.61119-1-whissi@gentoo.org> <22458.43548.445226.8005@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <143d120d-0628-e255-2428-b27ec3f4f4ac@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp+signed+NCbHJRQkHfeJuil"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mailgate-1.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.132.27]); Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:16:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mailgate-1.kph.uni-mainz.de X-Archives-Salt: 7aed108a-db51-4dcc-9e24-03cffdb66855 X-Archives-Hash: 39387c3e328ac954534361b74217a026 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --pgp+signed+NCbHJRQkHfeJuil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>> 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 --pgp+signed+NCbHJRQkHfeJuil Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXut8HAAoJEMMJBoUcYcJzOOAIAKrubgSBTN2V10sh7dJC3y1S c9ndkJsp8phQ/QGUafeUv9+X1mCHYk40ppxzovmFZkvK46GUrgP6fxvLn+460XUd ykjsatxO4mkgRkPRiDaBx1zibOoU8PJ2NVCZ7yuIrtVzLEYdu/69U5b/Dko0HkT/ IzD6XXu0i7Xdyp14h4Zk4rgVSjqShvWvnLbGk1hRwQhwUackgUV4V3H/yjtNm3sc 4UgaS5rTpdkJGEQWNP1ENffp5VSwr+pOnPQSiQEIg319ucKV/xDWXEpUOWEW+5Jk ya/K+JaodEYpd3mx1qTGi1YrjpNJjIVDfLKwH3q62cChuD0ToTyqZkxf/PfpvUM= =V9w/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp+signed+NCbHJRQkHfeJuil--