Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PuttyMachine fails with non-default port #85

Closed
gertjanklein opened this issue Aug 23, 2013 · 4 comments
Closed

PuttyMachine fails with non-default port #85

gertjanklein opened this issue Aug 23, 2013 · 4 comments

Comments

@gertjanklein
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

I have found that plumbum fails when using PuttyMachine to connect to a remote host with a non-standard ssh-port. The reason is that it uses the default "-p" parameter for specifying the port (set in SshMachine:init); however, the PuTTY plink program needs "-P" (capital P). If I change this in the plumbum source, things work as expected.

Regards,
Gertjan.

@tomerfiliba
Copy link
Owner

Could you please submit a pull request?
On Aug 23, 2013 11:20 PM, "gjklein" notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi,

I have found that plumbum fails when using PuttyMachine to connect to a
remote host with a non-standard ssh-port. The reason is that it uses the
default "-p" parameter for specifying the port (set in
SshMachine:init); however, the PuTTY plink program needs "-P" (capital
P). If I change this in the plumbum source, things work as expected.

Regards,
Gertjan.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/85
.

@gertjanklein
Copy link
Contributor Author

I tried. I hope I did it right (apart from whether you agree with the way I fixed the issue); I don't really understand pull requests. I noticed my pull request created a new issue; is there a way I could have prevented that?

@gertjanklein gertjanklein reopened this Aug 24, 2013
tomerfiliba added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 24, 2013
Fix issue #85: PuttyMachine fails with non-default port.
@tomerfiliba
Copy link
Owner

@gjklein - i changed the way #86 works, can you please verify it?

@tomerfiliba tomerfiliba reopened this Aug 24, 2013
@gertjanklein
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gjklein - i changed the way #86 works, can you please verify it?

I can confirm that this way works as well.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants