ср, 20 июн. 2018 г. в 22:09, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org>: > > On 2018/06/20 21:17, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The Ansible "patch" module fails to work on OpenBSD because it tries > > to use "--dry-run" command-line option on patch(1), while ours > > supports -C/--check instead. For now, I have an obvious, hm, patch :) > > for patch.py that replaces --dry-run with --check. But what way do > > people prefer: to move OpenBSD's patch(1) closer to GNU one, or to add > > some logic to patch.py that'll detect correct command-line option to > > use? > > I think it would be right to add some logic. By the time you're running > a command like this Ansible already knows what OS it's connecting to, > it should use that knowledge, and that way it will work on old OpenBSD > versions too. > > Since patch already accepts long options, it might also be worth > accepting --dry-run as a synonym for --check, as long as it does the > same thing.
It's absolutely the same, yes. > > There's also an issue with --binary: we don't support this option on > > OpenBSD, and GNU patch manual page says it's a no-op on POSIX anyway. > > Would it be okay to add --binary as a no-op option to our patch? > > It says "This option is needed on POSIX systems when applying patches > generated on non-POSIX systems to non-POSIX files", so I think it does > do something there? However our patch doesn't have heuristics for > handling line-endings like GNU patch does.. Ah, I've misunderstood "binary mode". Then, yes, this is not a no-op. This option isn't a real problem though, since if you're feeding our patch() with invalid line endings, you're screwed already. And you can just do not set "binary" flag in Ansible to avoid --binary there. :) -- WBR, Vadim Zhukov
