Im trying to make tufte-book to use EB Garamond. It does, but sadly, i have quite a few overfull boxes because many packages/styles use bold fonts.
An MWE for the complaint would be this:
\documentclass[a4paper,nobib,twoside,nofonts,nols]{tufte-book}
\usepackage{ebgaramond}
\ifxetex
\usepackage{fontspec}
\setmainfont{EB Garamond}
% some more renewals, as suggested in http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/202189/9293
% \renewcommand{\bfseries}[1]{\swshape}
\fi
\begin{document}
\part{Whine and cheese}
\end{document}
The above mwe compiles with the warnings:
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `EU1/EBGaramond(0)/bx/n' undefined
(Font) using `EU1/EBGaramond(0)/m/n' instead on input line 32.
[1] [2] (index.aux)stdin -> index.pdf
[1][2]
4341 bytes written
LaTeX Font Warning: Some font shapes were not available, defaults substituted.
If i use my full document, its getting worse, because quite a few line breaks are at the wrong places (i suspect the font substitution to be the culprit).
I already tried to renew the \bfseries command, as i suspect it to be responsible to be used in the book.sty, but if i do, the text for the part changes (first few chars are omitted, and "Part" is dropped, too), probably because redefining \bfseries does more than setting font weight :/
Therefore i ask you:
a) How to redefine the acutal font parameterization only for \part, and
b) How to redefine all bold for all usage of ebgaramond? (Because EB Garamond does not support bx)
or in general: How to fix such an problem?

ebgaramond.stydefines a bold font, but if you look closely, it's the medium size one. You get the warning because you're overriding the action of the package by declaring\setmainfont{EB Garamond}; remove the declaration and the warning will disappear. – egreg Sep 25 '16 at 20:16\usepackage{ebgaramond-maths}. However, I'd recommend setting it up to use theT1encoding when compiled with pdfLaTeX (or LaTeX). – cfr Sep 25 '16 at 20:57garamondxinstead: it has a bold weight. – Bernard Sep 25 '16 at 21:01ebgaramond-maths, however. Also, it is a controversial choice. – cfr Sep 25 '16 at 21:05