> 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.
yes, that is essentially what we decided. if we add the tooling to supply less-detailed information here, we are covering up for people's shortcomings of not reading the errata and patch. i'd like to mention that when 6.2 comes around, this will be handling the linkkit in /usr/share/compile/GENERIC*, and the number of files in a kernel patch will get larger. It is unlikely you will want to see that.
