Re: [PATCH] Re: etags name collision.

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022, Ergus  wrote:

> Now?

> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index 185e4d0862..ace80aed56 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -267,6 +267,19 @@ AC_DEFUN
>  fi
>  AC_SUBST([with_mailutils])
 
> +AC_ARG_WITH([ctags],
> +  [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-ctags],
> +     [rely on System ctags; this is the default if Universal ctags or
> +      Exuberant ctags is installed])],
> +  [],
> +  [with_ctags=$with_features
> +   if test "$with_ctags" = yes; then
> +     (ctags --version | grep "GNU Emacs") 2>/dev/null || with_ctags=no

Shouldn't this use the actual name under which Emacs will install ctags?
That is, respect AC_ARG_PROGRAM?

In its current form, it would break installation of the Gentoo package
(or require us adding an explicit --without-ctags).

> +   fi])
> +if test "$with_ctags" = no; then
> +  with_ctags=
> +fi

I still think that any test for an installed binary is a bad idea, from
a distro point of view. Note that distros typically build packages in an
environment that is different from the one of the final target system.