From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Post-22.1 development? Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:02:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <878xb05ras.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <200706101559.l5AFxBFb006829@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> <86fy4yg62v.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <466ED07F.9000002@gnu.org> <85fy4wx1tb.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87abv3tv8w.fsf@gmx.de> <87lkel67ma.fsf@gmx.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1181926440 25814 80.91.229.12 (15 Jun 2007 16:54:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:54:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, jasonr@gnu.org To: Michael Albinus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 15 18:53:58 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HzF3b-0002Is-Ro for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:53:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzF3b-0005CW-DO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:53:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HzF3Y-0005CH-TS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:53:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HzF3W-0005Ae-Vj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:53:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzF3W-0005AZ-TE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:53:50 -0400 Original-Received: from tomts43.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.110] helo=tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HzF3U-0006yR-2i; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:53:48 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([70.55.143.156]) by tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20070615140235.ROSP5730.tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net@pastel.home>; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:02:35 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 116E57F83; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:02:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87lkel67ma.fsf@gmx.de> (Michael Albinus's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 08\:09\:16 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Solaris 8 (1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:72976 Archived-At: >>>> Does someone have another idea for a way to avoid the need >>>> to change the programs that operate on the environment? >> >>> I fear it is even more complex. Processes running on remote hosts >>> (started by process-file, for example) would need a different process >>> environment but the one inherited from the local host. This is an item >>> being on my wish list for a long time. >> >> I don't understand how that relates. And I don't understand why it can't be >> done in the process-file file-name-handler. > Tramp manages it locally already. The point is when it comes to > environment variables a user wants to be set on the remote host. He > could write of course > (let ((process-environment ...)) > (setenv XXX ...) > (process-file ...)) > But $XXX would be set for the local case as well, because Tramp must > start with a local call-process or start-process. This could result in > undesired behaviour. Oh, I see. So yes, it's related: it shows there's a need to keep both the normal environment and the "environment for the subprocess started by call/start-process". For Tramp, it's indeed pretty tricky: the environment to use for the local process is not the one you receive from process-environment (which is destined to the remote process) but is rather "the global default process-environment" (maybe with a few minor adjustments). But this default process-environment is not quite the same as the initial-environment that I proposed either (although it can probably get by with just initial-environment). Stefan