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

[Filipp Gunbin]

On 30/03/2022 13:20 +0200, Michael Albinus wrote:

> Filipp Gunbin <fgunbin@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
>>> 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.
>
> No further complaints, so I've pushed the patch (plus documentation and
> test) to master.
>

Tested from master, works ok, thanks!

Filipp