[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?
From: |
Ulrich Mueller |
Subject: |
Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs? |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:48:41 +0100 |
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:47:09 +0100
>> Cc: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
>> address@hidden
>> From: Ulrich Mueller <address@hidden>
>>
>> > Maybe we should even make that the default? Does anyone still use
>> > the ctags that is distributed with Emacs?
>>
>> 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.
Ulrich
- Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Kaushal Modi, 2016/03/09
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/09
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/09
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Ulrich Mueller, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Kaushal Modi, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?,
Ulrich Mueller <=
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/10
- Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/10