Re: [PATCH] Re: etags name collision.

[Ergus]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:04:56PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2022, Ergus  wrote:
>
> > > > +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.
>
> If universal ctags is installed as "ctags", above test would detect that
> the installed version is not Emacs ctags. So, installation of ctags by
> Emacs would be suppressed, even if it was under a different name.
>
> Or am I missing something here?
But that's exactly the idea... to do what we do with movemail...

> > The option --with-ctags means rely on System ctags. I don't think you
> > need anything new.
>
> Universal ctags isn't more "system" than Emacs. They're both packages.
> (Again, this is from a distro point of view.)
emacs's ctags is not a package but just an executable inside another
package.