From: Klemens Nanni <kn@openbsd.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH_QUIET
To: Marc Espie <marc.espie.openbsd@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de>, ports@openbsd.org
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 14:56:39 +0000

13 окт. 2024 г. 15:13:52 Marc Espie <marc.espie.openbsd@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: kn@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.