From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: etags name collision. Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:41:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20220411124736.3qijvtearh6wlen7.ref@Ergus> <20220411124736.3qijvtearh6wlen7@Ergus> <83pmln69n0.fsf@gnu.org> <20220411134749.ps6g5ulpbamzm6ot@Ergus> <83k0bv679q.fsf@gnu.org> <83czhn5zbc.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27568"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: spacibba@aol.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 11 19:42:56 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ndy40-0006yB-5t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:42:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57148 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndy3y-0004kJ-Qo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:42:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56254) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndy2L-0003El-2D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:41:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:20816) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ndy2G-0003be-PQ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:41:11 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 64E411001E0; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E635E100134; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:41:04 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1649698864; bh=Xl1TC9ASmIP+2WNKhQD5ldh5V8yLL3pr/uUu/kAqgaU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ixojBOcYpgKONjpzFwj33rXq0m6HKaaUMjDdt/L15L9uDKYVNDM+lmSCVWoCVdADu DcoRqYJ3krmeehjhJgkChpCjRUHr+KzavhxBGfEQz6QKrYsuyWorvS3JUk+N1/OVhF FhosYG0JCXELDcverv1iuokYw9tTp/WVih5/MDXB99AF3nLZshba+58q9OxPleQgGF GIxaxqxYJnD1t1CVEx4IoFJgwYxVvPbOvZqF7r1Y2e0peUGvp1eCAokUVd3bMDiqyH IYY72YqjXKqXMGZqt7k5ZVItTKNB4owN51Zkcpo35oLUHzhWbrG3OxJxqSFGA8noix dpzKjSBuLf6qQ== Original-Received: from alfajor (modemcable240.145-162-184.mc.videotron.ca [184.162.145.240]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 591C812014A; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:41:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83czhn5zbc.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:01:43 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:288236 Archived-At: >> Maybe we should install it under a different name, to avoid >> the conflict but without losing the functionality? > No, that would be confusing If we install it under a name like `firefox`? Yes, no doubt. But I'm sure we can come up with a sane enough name to avoid this problem. > and will break those who do still use our ctags. Yes, that's the main downside. But it'd be a small matter of adding an alias or symlink, so it's not that bad. > I think detecting that another kind of ctags is installed is the best > and safest way to have the cake and eat it, too. Rather than "install vs not-install" the test could decide "install as `ctags` vs install as `somethingelse`", which is closer to having our cake and eating it too since the user can then have both installed at the same time. Still, an install-time test has the downside that it won't adapt if `ctags` is installed after Emacs is built/installed, as is probably the case for most users nowadays (who don't build Emacs themselves but install from a distro or from our prebuilt tarballs). AFAICT it won't make a big difference for GNU/Linux distros since these already go through the trouble of renaming our `ctags` (it might just make their job a bit easier and avoid inconsistencies between distros where every distro may choose a slightly different name). BTW, regarding the state of our `ctags` compared to the other ones. A few years back I remember someone comparing them and finding out that we support fewer languages but that for some of those languages we provided better results. If that's not the case any more, maybe we should check to see if we could make `etags.el` use "Exhuberant ctags" when available so as to benefit from the better tool. Stefan