Re: [PATCH] Re: etags name collision.

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:53:50 +0200
>> From: Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> >I still think that any test for an installed binary is a bad idea, from
>> >a distro point of view. Note that distros typically build packages in an
>> >environment that is different from the one of the final target system.
>> >
>> Here I agree

> How else to test whether this is needed?  I'm okay with having
> "--without-ctags" with no test, but then the default will have to be
> to install our ctags.

That sounds good.

> With the test, we could refrain from installing it if the test says
> so.

But then the test should be more specific, and check if there would be a
file collision at the actual target location (with the name modified by
--program-transform-name, if applicable). If there's no collision (e.g.
Emacs ctags has a different name) then Emacs should install it.

> I'm also okay with leaving things as they are now, obviously, if this
> change brings more problems than it solves.  I don't consider the
> current situation bad enough to necessitate any changes.

Things are like this since more than a decade, and obviously distros can
cope with the status quo.