Re: [9fans] rx - wot no stderr?

["ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>]

On 1/19/07, Gorka guardiola <paurea@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always survived this redirecting error messages to a file in
> the remote command. ¿Isn't that enough?.

sadly, no. At least for what we do. We need that stderr, we need it on
the 'local' side, note the 'remote' side, we need to be able to
seperate it out from stdout, and lots of things don't provide that,
not just rexec and cpu ...

Xcpu now does, at the request of our users.

Also, opening a second socket for stderr is really a bad idea for
n>=1024. 9p knows how to mux, so we use that nice fact.

Both rexec and cpu could make slightly more use of 9p to seperate the
two streams, I have always though. But it would take some work.

ron