On 25 Oct 1999, Kai Gro�johann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Pete Forman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> My question was somewhat rhetorical, I think that making the remote
>> shell interactive will lead to other problems. My .profile is just an
>> example.
>
> So, are you saying that my change was a bad one and that it should be
> reversed? Hm. Even with the old mechanism, one used to get
> interactive shells. But since nobody noticed, probably nobody really
> used all that. Hm.
I don't think that this is a serious issue. Given that the first thing,
pretty much, that is done by rcp.el is 'exec /bin/sh', setting a remote
variable for that is probably not much of an issue.
The connection functions do a fairly good job of sanitizing the
connection I think. If needs be, that can be improved. IMHO, of course.
> Do you think it would be a wrong approach to fix the `ls' problem now
> and to fix other problems as they appear?
I think that the new change is probably a good thing. The only real
problem with it is that I am thinking, vaguely, of trying to get a
slightly faster inline method working (using zmodem transfers) and that
will be irritated with a less than eight bit clean connection.
Still, it's not that much of an issue.
Daniel
--
Of course I lie to people. But I lie altruistically - for our mutual
good. The lie is the basic building block of good manners. That may
seem mildly shocking to a moralist - but then what isn't?
-- Quentin Crisp
