Peter Piwowarski wrote: > At present, what exactly was patched is not immediately obvious from > syspatch output, which could be annoying for administrators who want to > take some action based on what was changed (restart daemons linked to > patched libraries, etc). Could a -v option for syspatch (patch below), > causing it to print a message for each altered file, be a good idea? > Alternatively, perhaps there could be a hint, either in syspatch's > output or in the FAQ/manpage, that administrators should consider > reading each source patch to get an idea of what changed.
you add one -v option, they show up everywhere. :) there was a little discussion a while ago with some developers, and i think the consensus was we could print a little hint about what changed, every time. or maybe we decided not to print anything? there was also the idea that syspatch is meant to help automate patching, but you should still read the patch and understand it. the question would be if adding an optional argument to syspatch is the best way to solve this. if this information is important, it shouldn't be optional. and/or, is a list of names really the important information you want.
