From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <599f06db0701190432qfd37963vce69c803d3ec67d1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:32:17 +0100
From: "Gorka guardiola" <paurea@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] rx - wot no stderr?
In-Reply-To: <2c5a7c3362eeff4e33cf9c16f07a6149@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <2c5a7c3362eeff4e33cf9c16f07a6149@quintile.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 05d6c470-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 1/17/07, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
> I was surprised to find plan9's implementaion of
> rx(1) and rexexec(8) don't support a seperate socket
> for stderr out of the remote application.
>
> I can see that it is not that great, but somtimes
> when doing (from the manpage):
>
>         eqn paper | rx kremvax troff -ms | rx deepthought lp
>
> It would be nice to see your troff error messages
> onscreen rather than having to collect them from the
> printer.

I always survived this redirecting error messages to a file in
the remote command. =BFIsn't that enough?.
--=20
- curiosity sKilled the cat