Bug 92257
Summary: | ctags should use alternatives | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Marc MERLIN <marc_soft> |
Component: | ctags | Assignee: | Than Ngo <than> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Ben Levenson <benl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 2 | CC: | petersen |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2004-09-29 07:06:30 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Marc MERLIN
2003-06-04 08:00:16 UTC
Using alternatives for etags is fine. (But AFAIK etags and ctags are not compatible at all so symlinking etags to a ctags doesn't make much sense to me.) I think you mean *ctags* "from emacs is apparently inferior to ctags from" from ctags. <nod/> And the one in xemacs too... So why do we need alternatives for ctags? Because it is better to have emacs's ctags than none? An alternative might be just not to ship ctags in emacs at all... Currently we don't ship the xemacs one. Then again (sorry for so many comments), perhaps this has changed but I noticed this comment in emacs.spec: * Fri Feb 07 1997 Michael K. Johnson <johnsonm> - Moved ctags to gctags to fit in the more powerful for C (but less general) exuberant ctags as the binary /usr/bin/ctags and the man page /usr/man/man1/ctags.1 If this is still the case, we should probably use alternatives for ctags too... Actually that comment seems to completely out of date. Additionally I note that adding alternatives to ctags is non-trivial since rpm will delete the alternatives link when upgrading from an older ctags package... |