Re: [RFC] patch's default backup behavior

From: Kyle Evans <>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 14:43:41 UTC
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 8:17 PM Joerg Sonnenberger <> wrote:
> 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.

To be clear, when you say 'tooling' here, are you referring to pkgsrc
tooling or random third-party tooling being used as, e.g., build