From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Filipp Gunbin Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: process-file instead of call-process in proced.el? Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:42:37 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87o81shd6m.fsf@gmx.de> <87pmm8pqcq.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0cgh8g1.fsf@gmx.de> <87pmm8o8gc.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkxrhn1e.fsf@gmx.de> <87tubjfpyo.fsf@gmx.de> <87a6daf5l8.fsf@gmx.de> <875ynyf2vi.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="25113"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (darwin) Cc: Roland Winkler , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Michael Albinus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 28 21:47:34 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1nYvKt-0006FX-TU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 21:47:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52426 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nYvKs-0006IM-Jv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:47:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57058) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nYvGJ-00043L-89 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:42:48 -0400 Original-Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]:41741) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nYvGG-0006iv-QC; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:42:46 -0400 Original-Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3EA3201EE4; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:42:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; bh=uh3cjLkj+b+YQd0ItcX2KMN7t93TgLKMbWqmMq oFGmw=; b=lV/gqiTo2WsA5S2for6ceozUQq3HAZ/hGADj3A6QIexUUWjyig2Nnz bVuIjMj0vonsweu1poEcWN7lVqgG19nKbWo01pBXC0oF34ervPOXy3J7c8Rm5Cox IPp4MnjRRc6+get1mCSCFuQd+kwvVDYeRpQXNY/hqqfU3sEp2oKZtbj/p4XNG/eQ e7fV52v94mBsgEVM+k92uy7d687eFDFtVORgMgaU3FB71/QHV7QoDY88IJ7AWiXU hSxYwjom91fP/F+3rtbrTQVZq6Bj927VsM9wg6r8hHQy16OKrCKMhOLajfHeiYqt wmI6UtR7GFGSwfhBRS2gmBY7zgcfdhaw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=uh3cjLkj+b+YQd0It cX2KMN7t93TgLKMbWqmMqoFGmw=; b=mdqrIXjmel1SwqC0eu36G1MPjj9KDHIVi tmW4gymP76rv5rhSeSTubDLle8xx6fr8POUTx53h1kUET2RhGAmDVXji/L56Cy6H DNh5sAWxu5K9iE9CxIhMWGLk9DfNNKRu/QN6NgMaZBIPQHMpq54k7xxRxMSVB5pF QWavzZgbWK1KoLw1o1z8oyhNXqDkze4Szy6maTrhe2qX1Az9ALE6eX1lUyQLUZmB tWv6JEpJ3EMv/m6b5ZSrwGruJgni3SRmxyGZquqOs+r9UdfApkEw7uzU0OYOcJDX OvMKuG6IZ8juZyp7H637oHNKFPVKnyczhxxUelxl3ek79er0Vo0kA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrudehjedgudegudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffujghffgffkfggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomhephfhilhhi phhpucfiuhhnsghinhcuoehfghhunhgsihhnsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrfhhmqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedvveekffdvueevhfdutdejheekvdeufeevtedttdevuddugfeiffei veeivefhtdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehfghhunhgsihhnsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrfhhm X-ME-Proxy: Original-Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:42:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <875ynyf2vi.fsf@gmx.de> (Michael Albinus's message of "Mon, 28 Mar 2022 18:39:13 +0200") Mail-Followup-To: Michael Albinus , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Roland Winkler Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.19; envelope-from=fgunbin@fastmail.fm; helo=wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:287533 Archived-At: Hi, On 28/03/2022 18:39 +0200, Michael Albinus wrote: > Filipp Gunbin 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.