On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:01:21 +0100, Michael Albinus <michael.albi...@gmx.de> wrote: > Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kuroch...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Hi Michael. > > Hi Dmitry, > > > It is possible that the command TRAMP uses for decoding was just > > removed. What would happen then? As I understand, TRAMP would print an > > error that write failed because the command would fail. But at the same > > time it would wipe out the file because output is done via a > > redirection. > > Indeed. However, I've never heard about such a situation all the years > I'm using Tramp. And there is still the backup file which could be moved > back, isn't it? >
Do you mean the local backup file created by Emacs? > > Another (and probably better) option may be to add "which command &&" or > > similar to all decoders. > > Maybe. But there are also other dangerous commands in Tramp, which must > be protected then. Isn't this overcautious? > I guess you know better. But IMHO it is not. I do not know about other commands, but if they use output redirection, they should probably be protected as well. If decoders were using output file options instead or redirection (i.e. uudecode -o file instead of uudecode -o- > file), then "which" protection would not be needed. > > BTW if TRAMP finds that remote encoder/decoder fails, does it start > > checking for a working encoder/decoder again? > > There are situations, Tramp cleans up its whole cache (for example, when > a connection has been broken). And there are the `tramp-cleanup-*' > commands, which give the user the same mean, interactively. > Thanks, Dmitry > > Regards, > > Dmitry > > Best regards, Michael. _______________________________________________ Tramp-devel mailing list Tramp-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tramp-devel
