Matt writes on Thu 16 Nov 2023 20:03: > > ---- On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 10:30:59 +0100 Ihor Radchenko wrote --- > > > Or we can make use of TRAMP as we usually do to access remote > > environment. IMHO, it is more reliable as TRAMP takes care about > > arranging all the Elisp FS interaction to work on remote system. > > Agreed. Also, I wasn't aware TRAMP worked with shell block > evaluation. That's nice. > > Sure enough, these both work: > > #+begin_src bash :results output :dir /ssh:user@localhost:/home/user > :session *remote* > echo foo>foo_file > echo "bar" > #+end_src > > #+begin_src bash :results output :dir /ssh:user@localhost:/home/user > echo foo>foo_file > echo "bar" > #+end_src > > Of course, both calls happen on the remote. > > I wonder, would this have helped Alain?
No (see below). > I'm admittedly a little confused about the original report, > > #+name: original-report > #+begin_src bash :results output > ssh coch...@fruc.u-strasbg.fr "echo foo>foo_file" > echo "bar" > #+end_src > > Clearly, the ssh line is intended to happen on the remote server. > Was the echo "bar" intended to happen locally? Yes. (So I think that explains the 'no' above.) Then I'm confused about your confusion... Anyway, this gives me the opportunity to come back to the question of whether or not there is a problem with emacs itself (like some people here thought), and if some message should be sent to some emacs list. Again my argument was that the 2 commands copy/yank'ed in an emacs terminal don't work as expected, while they do if the same is done in an X terminal. I guess it is not important for Org, because workarounds have be proposed, but I think if there is a problem with emacs it should be reported, right? Thank you. -- EOST (École et Observatoire des Sciences de la Terre) ITE (Institut Terre & Environnement) | alain.coch...@unistra.fr 5 rue René Descartes [bureau 110] | Phone: +33 (0)3 68 85 50 44 F-67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France | [ slot available for rent ]
