From: Berndl, Klaus <klaus.berndl@ca...> - 2010-06-17 11:29:35
a first fast response: Please check the option `ecb-ping-options' or something similar... does this help?
Klaus Berndl / Capgemini sd&m / München
Senior-Berater / Öffentlicher Sektor
Tel: +49 89 63812-392 / Fax: +49 89 63812-444 / http://www.de.capgemini-sdm.com
Mobil: +49 162 2842051 / klaus.berndl@...
Capgemini sd&m AG, Carl-Wery-Straße 42, 81739 München
Vorstand: Burkhard Kehrbusch (Vorsitzender),
Dr. Uwe Dumslaff, Kai Grambow, Dr. Michael Rading, Josef Ranner
Aufsichtsrat: Patrick Nicolet (Vorsitzender)
Sitz und Amtsgericht: München HRB 126057
Von: Ware, Ryan R [ryan.r.ware@...]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 6. Juni 2010 00:50
Betreff: [ECB-list] Question About ecb-host-accessible-p
I just spent a couple of days debugging an issue and I’m curious what the thinking was about including the ecb-host-accessible-p function. I ended up having two issues that were causing ECB to not work via Tramp on my remote Linux system; both inadvertently because the ecb-host-accessible-p function makes some calls that uses the system’s ‘ping’ program to see if it can access the remote system: the first because the remote system was configured to drop ICMP echo packets on the ground and the second because the ping command on my Mac just runs forever when only the host name is given without any –c (count) option (fixed locally by setting the ecb-ping-options correctly).
I’m just trying to figure out why this function is here. It would seem that since it’s not testing the real transport protocol that it’s not really a valid test. Was this function included because Tramp, ANGE-FTP & EFS don’t do their own checks? It seems like that would be the place this should be done since ECB wouldn’t know how these modules are talking.
Anyway, this isn’t a criticism. I’m just wondering what issue prompted going this direction.