Pedro Giffuni <pfg_at_FreeBSD.org> writes: > Now, just some food for thought, but if you are unsure your patch > applies cleanly, why would you choose to use the -s (silent) option? Because by default patch(1) is overly verbose. At first, I'm only interested if a patch applies cleanly, then what files fail to apply. To fix the patch I just repeat over edit a hunk (or two) and confirm patch(1) no longer rejects it. With -Cs giving up is easy at any time. One may not care about a failed hunk in a man page or prefer to edit a patch as the whole instead of on per-file (.rej file) basis. > It would seem to me that some people may want the -s option to be > truly silent (those paths may be long) and since those .rej files are > not > really being created it is consistent not to list them. If you need -s to be truly silent then you're probably writing a script. At which point -C being a BSD extension and -s behaving differently from GNU patch would make more pain than not using them. A new option may be better e.g., -q, --quiet Do not write anything to standard output. Exit immediately with non-zero status if any hunk fails to apply.Received on Sat Jul 27 2013 - 02:12:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:39 UTC