From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Control of fan-speed on Lenovo Thinkpads Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:19:19 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87blb13vr8.fsf@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3901"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 31 22:20:09 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lRhJx-0000vX-4N for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 22:20:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57282 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRhJw-0002MB-4b for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:20:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48744) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRhJF-0002LT-Gn for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:19:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:20346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lRhJC-0007XX-VU for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:19:24 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6B74580C2B; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:19:21 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0BDB88065D; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:19:20 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1617221960; bh=4TkycAJdVXhUbZE43P0aINaIRNEhQQw30FiJjVDWM5Y=; h=From:To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=DThCZ69kJZ9r2TvQv+A9O2/K0S5adPiyvozlfHWDdwP8jE0kzGP7Tw7PZDxOL055q 9HtK3PKF394DQdaClD+U792X3NRpyW2jvw73YqlT7OVTueQnCr/sPDgctry8zY7Wz+ nbdQk2T5R2eHdQ9LaCyoPV2RNvQh4ZcsLW3v4nQPQlfo1W+kmgwZODny/kmC7Eq6pn BmWSghrPeWVJ6x0GSLgPN5Ly6RAhmAMRTAgJPxnRYALmbj/CfQvndrtbqdNWvXU0Am LBwG3/94w8ovPhyHM0JGoJ8+qukLM9pE93KyhwDtvGabJe5SWKpOAc4MuaKDwu1Amv ZniBSeRuNMApw== Original-Received: from alfajor (104-222-126-84.cpe.teksavvy.com [104.222.126.84]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFCAC1201FC; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:19:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Jean Louis's message of "Wed, 31 Mar 2021 23:02:46 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:128797 Archived-At: > * Stefan Monnier [2021-03-31 17:24]: >> > (let* ((sudo `(call-process "sudo" nil ,sudo-buffer t "su" "-c" "--" "root" "-c" ,command)) >> > (status (eval sudo)) >> >> Why? No kitten needs to suffer here: >> >> (let* ((status (call-process "sudo" nil sudo-buffer t "su" "-c" "--" "root" "-c" command)) > > In that specific case yes. It works, I changed it. But it defeats > itself in purpose, do you see? That COMMAND is parameter to `su' which > invokes default user's shell. I don't find it bad, it just defeats the > purpose of `call-process'. You still have the risk of "command" being incorrect because of messed up quoting, but not because of the shell you yourself invoke: just because of the shell invoked by `su`. And since "command" is what you receive you can't do much better than that anyway. Stefan