Re: [PATCH] Re: etags name collision.

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 09:39:36PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022, Ergus  wrote:
>
>> Now?
>
>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>> index 185e4d0862..ace80aed56 100644
>> --- a/configure.ac
>> +++ b/configure.ac
>> @@ -267,6 +267,19 @@ AC_DEFUN
>>  fi
>>  AC_SUBST([with_mailutils])
>
>> +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.

>In its current form, it would break installation of the Gentoo package
>(or require us adding an explicit --without-ctags).
>
The option --with-ctags means rely on System ctags. I don't think you
need anything new.

>> +   fi])
>> +if test "$with_ctags" = no; then
>> +  with_ctags=
>> +fi
>
>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