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

[Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm>]

Hi,

On 28/03/2022 18:39 +0200, Michael Albinus wrote:

> Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Filipp,
>
>>> Would be possible. However, I fail to understand which command you have
>>> in mind instead of "kill".
>>
>> Well, at least kill builtin in shell.  I don't know, I'd just prefer it
>> be customizable.  This is highly system-dependent, so it'd be more
>> future-proof.
>
> Tramp sends already the "kill builtin in shell". Could we just leave it
> as it is, and add connection-local behavior when requested by real use
> cases? We're still in Emacs master, years from being released.

I think yes..

>> Yeah, I see, the pid will be taken from localhost, but "kill" will be
>> sent to remote.  Can we for now just raise an error if we see that the
>> remote is not simple sudo/su/whatever?  Maybe later we'll be able to
>> implement "get remote process list".
>
> 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.

Thanks.