Re: [PATCH] Re: etags name collision.

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:04:56PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022, Ergus  wrote:
>
>>>> +AC_ARG_WITH([ctags],
>>>> +  [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-ctags],
>>>> +     [rely on System ctags; this is the default if Universal ctags or
>>>> +      Exuberant ctags is installed])],
>>>> +  [],
>>>> +  [with_ctags=$with_features
>>>> +   if test "$with_ctags" = yes; then
>>>> +     (ctags --version | grep "GNU Emacs") 2>/dev/null || with_ctags=no
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this use the actual name under which Emacs will install ctags?
>>> That is, respect AC_ARG_PROGRAM?
>>>
>> Not needed, if it uses a different name there is no collision, so the
>> test is not needed.
>
>If universal ctags is installed as "ctags", above test would detect that
>the installed version is not Emacs ctags. So, installation of ctags by
>Emacs would be suppressed, even if it was under a different name.
>
>Or am I missing something here?
>
But that's exactly the idea... to do what we do with movemail...

>> The option --with-ctags means rely on System ctags. I don't think you
>> need anything new.
>
>Universal ctags isn't more "system" than Emacs. They're both packages.
>(Again, this is from a distro point of view.)
>
emacs's ctags is not a package but just an executable inside another
package.