Bug 510244

Summary:	[TRACKER] There still exist ebuilds with no epatch_user
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Hristo Venev <hristo>
Component:	[OLD] Unspecified	Assignee:	Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE
Severity:	normal	CC:	ulm
Priority:	Normal	Keywords:	Tracker
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---

Description Hristo Venev 2014-05-13 15:11:26 UTC

A tracker for all ebuilds that install at least one file and do not run epatch_user

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2014-05-13 15:19:41 UTC

What is the point in tracking this? What ultimate goal requires us to then revisit this bug?

Comment 2 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2014-05-24 19:47:32 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 475288 ***

Comment 3 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev

2014-05-24 20:34:23 UTC

Things could be sped up by:
- Writing a PMS spec for bug 463768 and bug 475288.
- Implementing these features in Portage.

In contrast, a tracker bug for random packages doesn't help. It is even likely that those ebuilds where we add epatch_user now will have to be touched again, once we have the feature in an EAPI.

Comment 4 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2014-05-24 20:42:09 UTC

(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #3)
> Things could be sped up by:
> - Writing a PMS spec for bug 463768 and bug 475288.
> - Implementing these features in Portage.
> 
> In contrast, a tracker bug for random packages doesn't help. It is even
> likely that those ebuilds where we add epatch_user now will have to be
> touched again, once we have the feature in an EAPI.

Well, for that a tracker bug would be useful, but then we might as well build some deprecation logic into eutils.eclass (make it a noop, perhaps give a QA warning) and add a repoman check (when EAPI>foo; then QAwarning) and we wouldn't even need bugzilla to weed them out.