On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 8:52 AM Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-12-13 at 08:47 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 3:15 PM Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > > I think this should be reverted. It causes too much noise, and > > > > "solves" a problem only very rarely. > > > > > > Now, how many lines of output does this typically produce, compared > > > to the total size of a typical build log? Especially with mgorny's > > > subsequent modification, which suppresses the output unless the patch > > > doesn't apply cleanly. > > > > In most cases, I would be inclined to simply ignore the patch output > > since there's really no need for me to take any action on it. > > > > On the other hand, it makes it more difficult to quickly identify the > > list of patches being applied if there is junk output in the middle of > > the list. > > > > > It was also suggested that we add -F0 in EAPI 8, but that would break > > > the build in those cases that are producing extra output now. I don't > > > think that would be preferable. > > > > I am opposed to including such a change in EAPI 8. It would make > > ebuild maintenance more difficult for everyone, and I don't think the > > potential benefit is worth it. > > ...and why do we consider it correct to apply patches when the context > doesn't match? If our only goal is to make things 'easier' for > 'everyone', then we could just pass -F9999 and ignore all the context. > > Though I don't understand why include any context in the first place if > you don't care about it matching. Sounds like a waste of space to me!
The patch command defaults to -F2. If that makes no sense, why is it the upstream default?
