From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <df3ead9fb0547531720b87f46821951f@quintile.net>
From: "Steve Simon" <steve@quintile.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:15:06 +0000
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] rx - wot no stderr?
In-Reply-To: <412467dc08b91c236bd993a38c474e0c@coraid.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 067d0e2a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> if you are talking to a plan 9 server, stderr already works:

I don'r believe it does in the way I mean. The server-side of cpu opens
/mnt/term/dec/cons for stdout and again for stderr so you cannot run a remote
program, and locally redirect its stdout and stderr (without using a
temporary file in a shared file space for one or t'other as already mentioned.

>>From my earlier example

	eqn paper | cpu kremvax -c troff -ms >[2] errfile | cpu -c deepthought lp

will not put my troff errors in errfile, though I admit
this is becomming a rather contrived example.

I would like to be able to do:

	rx -l steve host program > prog.out >[2] prog.err

and I cannot.

I thought about using cpu and putting a local filesystem MBEFORE
/dev/cons but it would have to make assumptions about the order
in which the remote cpu server opened /dev/cons (stdout and stderr)
which is a bit wooly for my liking.

Its not a big deal, I just wondered if there was a reason,
and I guess the answer is, no, no big reason, just no one
wanted it enough to do the work.

-Steve