Re: etags name collision.

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >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.

   >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.

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.