Re: etags name collision.

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 03:16:50AM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>   >> Do one thing and do it right...
>   >
>   >And we don't??
>
>   ctags is a different "thing" than the emacs "thing" and with the current
>   support it has is not right (or good enough)... so... no one thing and
>   not right either...
>
>Not all systems use Exuberant Ctags or Universal Ctags.  On the BSDs,
>ctags is compatible with the Emacs ctags output (which is why it
>exists, AFAIR).  Exuberant Ctags etc do not work with either vi(1) or
>mg(1) on those systems, and their output is at odds with what is
>standardized by POSIX.
>
In what sense it is not standarized by POSIX?

I use OpenBSD in my servers daily and all my team around use vim and
neovim with Universal Ctags with no issue.  Universal ctags can generate
emacs tags, json, legacy and modern ctags, xref... if there is some
problem the right to do is to open an issue in their project...

Many distros are already renaming our file and nobody notice.

>So really, you're suggesting to remove a standardized utility and
>replace it with non-standard ones that produce incompatible output
>from what is generally accepted.
>
I am suggesting to avoid the forced installation of a utility that we
are not maintaining very well for another very well maintained, with
more languages, support and formats.