From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: etags name collision. Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:18:43 +0300 Message-ID: <83pmln69n0.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20220411124736.3qijvtearh6wlen7.ref@Ergus> <20220411124736.3qijvtearh6wlen7@Ergus> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1934"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ergus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 11 15:21:15 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtyl-0000Lr-EM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:21:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34674 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtyk-0003wL-HI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:21:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42022) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtwI-00018A-F7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:18:42 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37182) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtwI-0006UQ-5Z; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:18:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=jypw2AE3hm+lFreClEjTkJVsbO5UuzO+IjASrmoExXA=; b=AGR7oN/cx5LE v5F2GXcUto6XHONERFCP5qJSWgZ+gxk64G+CpcabOXYzzEXLtExJeOcUEA4OrdapYcid0azRauEBN tK4drtudr+80zr7oLS5oGRglnY2Q4D4IAuCGHLHxZ7oRxDePjCt3PBPLBM0E0d+WkPJjG0PqIlbfQ OJ/V0PAtjOTdazDstUoPq8FjvVJhVzpYxIesJ1LaVeTa3b55Vn2Zn6Jg0Z2kCU5eqIswYh4RsJu2J agn3FckDe6gXhcCeIxbo3m2s4oil4v+5NC9URopTCEx2PWaJxjdHK/HMK0GujrVlE3i6+/CW2SLXH M632LVlT6LqSYOfpScRP8w==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4952 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndtwH-00017c-LS; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:18:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20220411124736.3qijvtearh6wlen7@Ergus> (message from Ergus on Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:47:36 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:288191 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:47:36 +0200 > From: Ergus > > 1) Why do we have etags+ctags executables so far they do more or less > the same work right?. Because ctags produces tags table in a format understood by more applications than just Emacs. > 2) Why do we create an executable with a name that is used by another > very wheel known program. It's the other way around: ctags was a very old Unix program, and Emacs developed a GNU version of that program. Universal ctags came much later. So you should ask them why did they decide to use a name that was already taken. > 3) Could we consider to keep only etags and remove the ctags file in > order to let the users to access. I don't see why we should remove a program just because someone who uses an incompatible program by the same name should manage his/her installations. A simple solution is for that user to not install the Emacs version of ctags. > In general when the users want to use ctags I am pretty sure they refer > to universal or exuberant ctags today... But also such executable create > inconsistencies when using TRAMP and the support for languages like Rust > or modern C++ is not good; so maybe an even more radical approach may be > considered. Some distros like Arch Linux explicitly rename it to solve > the conflict, but if we have etags already, do we really need the other > executable? Emacs doesn't need ctags, but users might need it for working with other development tools.