Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@bec.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior Message-ID: <202204111658.23BGwmcC073621@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <YlIwJWLuIQ6g6fp0@bec.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Am Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 10:25:08PM -0500 schrieb Kyle Evans: > > I'd like to test the waters on switching this to the GNU behavior, > > which feels a whole lot more reasonable. Notably, they'll only create > > backup files if a mismatch was detected (presumably this means either > > a hunk needed fuzz or a hunk outright failed). This yields far fewer > > backup files in the ideal scenario (context entirely matches), while > > still leaving backup files when it's sensible (base file changed and > > we might want to regenerate the patch). > > > > Thoughts / comments / concerns? > > Personally, I'm more often annoyed by the GNU behavior than not. > Especially when working on pkgsrc, the GNU behavior of > sometimes-not-creating-backups actually breaks tooling. I also consider > the rationale somewhat fishy as tools like sed have historically not > operated in-place. Personally, if YOU like the behavior of gnu patch, by all means, please USE gnu patch. Please do NOT make bsd patch behave in a different manner simply because you personally like that other behavior. If you want the stuff to look like Linux/GNU by all means, go RUN linux/gnu!!!! -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202204111658.23BGwmcC073621>