"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One small comment, make the variable names a bit more generic and > descriptive and preferbly use an existing name. For example, > TLA_SSH_BINARY is bad since another GNU Arch implementation could > implement such a feature.
I wondered, too. Probably `ARCH_' would be a better prefix. > Adding _BINARY is redundant too. No, it's not. By default, the program name is determined based on the SSH implementation type. I.e., the default program name for implementation type `lsh' is `lshc', the program name for `openssh' is `ssh', etc. But sometimes you'll want to specify another program name, like `lshg' for implementation type `lsh', or, say, `/usr/openstuff/ssh' for `openssh', hence the `_BINARY' option. > Since you could in theory end up using plain old remote shell, or a > variant of it that encrypts the traffic or anything inbetween. I'm > also skeptical over the RSH_TYPE thing too, cannot this be specified > in some other way? By only using the RSH variable? Not even sure what > that variable does... That's what I thought at first but it is not true in the current implementation: tla really expects some implementation of SFTP, not an arbitrary RSH implementation. Theoretically, I agree that a generic RSH layer would have been, well, more generic. > Wonderful patch though, I prefer using lsh over ssh so I'll enjoy this > one. :-) So do I. But note that (on PPC at least) an `abrowse' with `lshc' or even `lshg' turns out to be much, much slower (around 12 times as slow as OpenSSH!). Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
