Re: Poll: Inline methods sufficient?

[lawrence mitchell]

Kai Grossjohann wrote:

> Are the inline methods sufficient that Tramp offers now?  I mean the
> ways to encode a file for transit, not all the alternatives to ssh
> and telnet that people might think of.

> Tramp tries base64 encoding via mimencode, mmencode, two Perl scripts
> and GNU recode, and then it tries UU encoding via uuencode/uudecode.

It seems like enough.  Is there a pointer in the manual for where
one might find uuencode for Windows?  If not: <URL:
http://www.concentric.net/~Wkiernan/UUencode/uuencode.html> seems
to offer a version, though they are not free (as in speech
software).  The GNU versions (of uucode) also come with cygwin
(mingw doesn't seem to do the sharutils), but getting all of
cygwin seems a bit excessive.

There's a pointer to metamail on the NTEmacs FAQ, which I would
guess is probably enough.

> People running Windows with remote systems requiring UU encoding
> might have problems because of a missing uuencode on Windows.

> There are plans to support another encoding which uses "od -b" to
> read files from the remote host and SysV-style "echo -e" to send
> files to the remote host (including \000 for null bytes).  Is this
> really necessary, or is what is offered now enough?

Again for windows, the "echo -e" would have to be emulated
somehow, as the echo builtin is pathetic.  But I think that there
are generally enough fallback inline methods.

-- 
lawrence mitchell <address@hidden>