[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how to persuade shell/ssh mode to use remote dynamic completion.
From: |
Simon |
Subject: |
Re: how to persuade shell/ssh mode to use remote dynamic completion. |
Date: |
27 Jul 2002 13:09:06 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.1 |
Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (KaiGroßjohann) writes:
> simon.allfrey@epfl.ch (Simon Allfrey) writes:
>
> > Most machines I connect to will only accept secure connections.
> > Under ssh remote directory tracking (via tramp/ssh), while possible
> > can be very slow. In the case of gateway scenario where the remote
> > machines do not support the inline tramp methods, directory tracking
> > becomes impossible. Thus I look to the remote shell to support
> > command/filename completion but I want to avoid if at all possible
> > using the unfriendly term mode.
>
> I understand the "slow" part. But I don't understand the "gateway
> scenario" part -- if you can log in to the machine and get a shell,
> then you should be able to use Tramp, no?
Since we need to go through a gateway a multihop method would be needed:
* `multi' -- base64 encoding with `mimencode'
mimencode is not supported on the most remote machine and,
* `multiu' -- use commands `uuencode' and `uudecode'
falls foul of:
* The uuencode method does not always work.
Due to the design of TRAMP, the encoding and decoding programs
need to read from stdin and write to stdout. On some systems,
`uudecode -o -' will read stdin and write the decoded file to
stdout, on other systems `uudecode -p' does the same thing. But
some systems have uudecode implementations which cannot do this at
all--it is not possible to call these uudecode implementations
with suitable parameters so that they write to stdout.
Even if I provided mimencode on the most remote machine, permitting
use tramp, would the problem of command completion not remain?