Re: process-file instead of call-process in proced.el?

[Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>]

Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm> writes:

> Hi,

Hi,

>> For now, we support only local pids, as Roland has explained. My patch
>> does this, w/o the need to raise an error in case of a pilot error.
>>
>> If you are concerned about the prefix argument for "C-u k" and "C-u r"
>> I'm open to another mean for an indication to proced, that root
>> permissions are desired.
>>
>> And if we decide to support also remote pids being target of a signal,
>> that would be another game. Nothing to prepare now, it would be a major
>> change anyway.
>
> I was suggesting a way to get rid of proced-remote-directory, which
> looks a bit obscure for me.  You noted that it's easy to get unexpected
> behavior (local pid but remote signal), then I suggested a way to handle
> it (raise an error).  If you think proced-remote-directory is better -
> let it be, I'm perfectly fine with it.

No further complaints, so I've pushed the patch (plus documentation and
test) to master.

> Thanks.

Best regards, Michael.