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 08:10:29 +0200 Message-ID: <83y49qn9re.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ziu7mkee.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457590258 3592 80.91.229.3 (10 Mar 2016 06:10:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:10:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Kaushal Modi Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 10 07:10:48 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 1adto4-0003C6-9N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:10:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46450 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adto0-0007nt-3P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:10:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34377) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adtnf-0007nm-OZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:10:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adtnc-0005gR-IZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:10:19 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34762) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adtnc-0005gM-Et; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:10:16 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4700 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1adtnb-0004ML-MY; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 01:10:16 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Kaushal Modi on Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:29:28 -0500) 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:201347 Archived-At: > From: Kaushal Modi > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:29:28 -0500 > Cc: Emacs developers > > Why not put your Exuberant ctags elsewhere, and use a shell alias to > invoke it? > > That's definitely an option. But I was looking for a way to declutter my $PATH and $MANPATH of stuff I am > never going to use. Also I prefer to not hard code aliases to binaries because my binary locations are dynamic > (the $PATH is update based on the RHEL OS version and version of the software (master/stable/etc)). An alias can use any shell construct you want, so it can be dynamic. > Would removing "ctags${EXEEXT}" from this line (using something like sed) prevent building of ctags and its > manpage? Yes.