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

[Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm>]

On 25/03/2022 14:58 +0100, Michael Albinus wrote:

> Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> These are different things.  What Michael suggests would fix the case
>> for signal-process, which would be great.
>
> Yes :-)
>
>> But what I originally
>> suggested would fix the case for when proced-signal-function is
>> customized to something else, like "kill", for whatever reasons.  Then
>> it can be used like I described, running the command from "remote"
>> sudo/su buffer, whatever it be.
>
> My point is that there's no reason to use proced-signal-function.
> signal-process is sufficient, and when we make it remote-host aware,
> even better.
>

Currently, there is a reason - signal-process is not remote-host aware
:-) Also there may be other systems on which it does not work for other
reasons.  I mean, if the support for user-specified command is there,
and we don't want to remove it (do we?), then why not fix it, in
parallel with improving signal-process?