A tracker for all ebuilds that install at least one file and do not run epatch_user Reproducible: Always
What is the point in tracking this? What ultimate goal requires us to then revisit this bug?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 475288 ***
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.
(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.