Re: [PATCH] Re: etags name collision.

[Ergus]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 09:39:36PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > 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?
Not needed, if it uses a different name there is no collision, so the
test is not needed.

> In its current form, it would break installation of the Gentoo package
> (or require us adding an explicit --without-ctags).
The option --with-ctags means rely on System ctags. I don't think you
need anything new.

> > +   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.
Here I agree