Re: ootags needed?

Stephen> Except that we have no reason to believe that etags emits Stephen> TAGS files that oo-browser understands. I believe it does ;-) (Well, this needs to be verified of course but my belief, based on using the oo-browser, is that the part of oo-browser that uses TAGS files is just the normal TAGS-functionality. Possibly accessed through hyperbole. The main functionality of oo-browser does not rely on or need ootags at all.) Stephen> The comments are wrong. ootags is not maintained by anyone Stephen> at GNU or XEmacs anymore; if it's maintained at all, Bob Stephen> Weiner is doing it. One more reason to drop it then. Stephen> We can't really know whether people are using the oo-browser Stephen> outside of InfoDock or not. We don't have to be vary on this. I'm using it outside of InfoDock ;-) Stephen> It doesn't much hurt to keep it, ... OK. Could be so but the discussion on comp.emacs.xemacs, IMHO, suggests otherwise. Stephen> ... and potentially does harm to drop it unless and until Stephen> oo-browser understands modern etags TAGS files (and assuming Stephen> that etags emits the information that oo-browser needs). OK. I'll check this so that we know. Isn't it a bit strange though to keep or distribute a binary needed by some elisp that isn't in the sumo-tar-ball? We don't do this for other non-included packages I think. (But I shouldn't say that since I really want both hyperbole and oobr to be moved back in again ;-) Yours -- %% Mats