From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs? Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:20:36 +0200 Message-ID: <83shzyl8i3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <56E0D27E.3030303@cs.ucla.edu> <83k2lan7n3.fsf@gnu.org> <22241.24253.891410.492540@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <8337rymqjc.fsf@gnu.org> <22241.31545.974354.694899@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457619646 20524 80.91.229.3 (10 Mar 2016 14:20:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kaushal.modi@gmail.com, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ulrich Mueller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 10 15:20:41 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ae1SB-00073L-65 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:20:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48819 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ae1SA-0006oZ-Hm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:20:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41807) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ae1S1-0006ni-FD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:20:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ae1S0-0007s2-De for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:20:29 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42723) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ae1Rv-0007qt-7g; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:20:23 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1860 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ae1Ru-0003VN-9N; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:20:22 -0500 In-reply-to: <22241.31545.974354.694899@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> (message from Ulrich Mueller on Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:48:41 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:201385 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:48:41 +0100 > Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org, kaushal.modi@gmail.com > From: Ulrich Mueller > > >> Wouldn't that argument apply to etags as well? > > > No, because the Exuberant program is named "ctags", not "etags". > > Sorry, but I don't understand. Exuberant installs a ctags binary and > (if configured with the --enable-etags option) an etags symlink > pointing to it. > > Why would the argument be different for the case of two separate > binaries, as opposed to one binary and a symlink to it? Either way, > there will be name (and file) collisions. Because I think there's no reason nowadays to invoke ctags that comes with Emacs, which is not true for etags. And also because the default name of Exuberant program is ctags, not etags.