13 окт. 2024 г. 15:13:52 Marc Espie <marc.espie.open...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 08:38:29PM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote: >> 06.10.2024 23:10, Christian Weisgerber пишет: >>> Klemens Nanni: >>> >>>> CVSROOT: /cvs >>>> Module name: ports >>>> Changes by: k...@cvs.openbsd.org 2024/10/06 04:24:24 >>>> >>>> Modified files: >>>> infrastructure/mk: bsd.port.mk >>>> >>>> Log message: >>>> new opt-in PATCH_QUIET aka. patch(1) -s; OK tb >>> >>> Was this discussed somewhere? We could have simply brought PATCH_DEBUG >>> back, which was removed in rev 1.1617. >> >> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=172781869928633&w=2 >> >> Subject: bsd.port.mk: PATCH_QUIET >> From: Klemens Nanni <kn () openbsd ! org> >> Date: 2024-10-01 21:39:19 >> >> PATCH_DEBUG also effected the '==> Applying ...' lines which are helpful, >> imho, >> and toggled patch(1) --forward behaviour, so not quite the same. >> >> > I'm not a big fan of this either, especially since the silent behavior > was initially removed for a very specific reason: "This" being old PATCH_DEBUG or new PATCH_QUIET? > >>> set PATCH_DEBUG=Yes by default, to make it easier to notice patches which >>> get misapplied after an update (fuzz etc). ok giovanni@ landry@ danj@ edd@ > > > It would be very much appreciated if you could instead either have a look > at patch(1) or at its output so that this information isn't lost. I plan to look at our patch(1), until then a simple opt-in switch to reduce spam for porters doesn't hurt, imho. We can always iterate on that.
