Re: etags name collision.

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 09:45:03AM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>   >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?
>
>The output from Exuberant ctags is not what POSIX asks for.  Programs
>that expect the POSIX format will thus not work, or do funny stuff.
>
Again, I haven't observed that, that's exactly my point, if there is an
issue in universal ctags output format it should be reported, but I
haven't observed any mismatch.

>   >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.
>
>That is changing the point I was making, that Emacs ctags produces the
>standard ctags output where Exuberant ctags does not.
>
Universal ctags DOES generate standard ctags format (and some others
like etags format); they actually explicitly refer to vi in the man
page.

Exuberant is not maintained since 2011.

>But, I do think that the Emacs maintainers will disagree that
>ctags/etags is not being maintained.  Like everything in Emacs,
>someone has to do the work,

> and you're most welcome to send patches to
>improve ctags (or etags).  We all would appreciate it.
>
If there is the free and active universal ctags with a big and active
team doing that work and supporting many format and languages, then it
is pointless to duplicate effort and invest time on that.  Don't
reinvent the wheel.