Re: using auth-source for authentication

[Michael Albinus]

Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:22:01 +0200 Michael Albinus <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> MA> I'm still thinking about it. Is it really necessary, to (mis-)use the
> MA> port part of an auth-source entry with the value "tramp" in order to
> MA> indicate, that such an entry is intended for all possible Tramp
> MA> protocols? I believe it might be sufficient, that the port part of an
> MA> entry is optional. If it is missing, it means "intended for all
> MA> protocols (Tramp) or ports (other applicants of auth-source)".
>
> I think it makes sense to unite Tramp-ish protocols (ssh, sftp, scp,
> ftp, etc.) under "tramp" as a protocol name, but if you disagree I'm OK
> with it, it won't bother me at all.  Just replace "tramp" with the
> method name in the call to auth-source-user-or-password or I can do it
> if you like.

There is no need to have a "unified protocol name" for Tramp. I use the
following line in .authinfo.gpg:

machine arthur login albinus password geheim

When I open "/ssh:address@hidden:", the password is read from there. The
absence of a protocol is as good as writing "protocol tramp", and it is
more clean I believe.

> You can also allow "tramp" or the method name as the port, with the idea
> that users can use "tramp" or "ssh" as needed.  It will require two
> calls to auth-source-user-or-password, though, because it doesn't
> currently handle multiple ports and I would prefer not to change that
> (to keep the API as simple as possible).

That's how you've added it to tramp.el. I've removed the second call for
method "tramp".

> Ted

Best regards, Michael.