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

[Michael Albinus]

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.

> Filipp

Best regards, Michael.