9:04 a.m.
Hi,
Recently an old Gentoo bug [1] was revived about a file collision between
Exuberant ctags [2] and XEmacs and GNU Emacs. All of these applications
try to install /usr/bin/ctags and would overwrite each other's binaries.
We are currently discussing strategies to solve this issue, but I thought
I'd raise the issue here as well.
My current understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that:
Exuberant ctags is more featureful (e.g. supports more languages) than
the version shipped with XEmacs, and
Exuberant ctags is not a full drop-in replacement for ctags in XEmacs.
From a distribution point of view the preferred solution would be to
unbundle ctags from XEmacs and let people decide (with the distro
providing a default) which ctags implementation to use. This would
certainly solve our problem. I'd be happy to explore other solutions as
well, and additional insight into this situation would be helpful.
Kind regards,
Hans de Graaff
Gentoo XEmacs maintainer
1. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29398
2. http://ctags.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:15 a.m.
>>>> Hans de Graaff writes:
Hi,
Recently an old Gentoo bug [1] was revived about a file collision between
Exuberant ctags [2] and XEmacs and GNU Emacs. All of these applications
try to install /usr/bin/ctags and would overwrite each other's binaries.
We are currently discussing strategies to solve this issue, but I thought
I'd raise the issue here as well.
My current understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is
that:
Exuberant ctags is more featureful (e.g. supports more languages) than
the version shipped with XEmacs, and
Exuberant ctags is not a full drop-in replacement for ctags in XEmacs.
> From a distribution point of view the preferred solution would be
to
unbundle ctags from XEmacs and let people decide (with the distro
providing a default) which ctags implementation to use. This would
certainly solve our problem. I'd be happy to explore other solutions as
well, and additional insight into this situation would be helpful.
On cygwin at least we bundle them separately in a xemacs-tags package:
/usr/bin/ctags.exe
/usr/bin/etags.exe
/usr/share/man/man1/ctags.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/etags.1.gz
/usr/share/doc/Cygwin/xemacs-tags-21.4.20.README
But there is still the collision with the Exuberant ctags package :-(
Kind regards,
Hans de Graaff
Gentoo XEmacs maintainer
Ciao
Volker
Cygwin XEmacs maintainer
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:05 p.m.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:15:24 +0200, Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
On cygwin at least we bundle them separately in a xemacs-tags
package:
/usr/bin/ctags.exe
/usr/bin/etags.exe
/usr/share/man/man1/ctags.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/etags.1.gz
/usr/share/doc/Cygwin/xemacs-tags-21.4.20.README
But there is still the collision with the Exuberant ctags package :-(
Thanks for the feedback.
The solution we are currently testing involves our eselect module. [1]
Basically each of exuberant tags, GNU Emacs, and XEmacs install their
version of ctags/etags with a postfix, and eselect makes sure that the
right thing happens (i.e. with only one of these /usr/bin/ctags is a
symlink to the postfixed version, and otherwise the user can select which
version to symlink to).
Kind regards,
Hans
1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/eselect/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:52 p.m.
Hans de Graaff writes:
We are currently discussing strategies to solve this issue, but I
thought
I'd raise the issue here as well.
Tags is an extremely important functionality, and since many systems
where XEmacs may be installed will not normally provide a tags
program, I think it's important that we provide one in the source
distro. Our current policy is to distribute Francesco Portori's
etags; we have several other tags programs that are closely related,
at least in historical derivation.
Francesco has mentioned a possibility of merging with Exuberant ctags
on several occasions. That's all I know about the situation.
From a distribution point of view the preferred solution would be to
unbundle ctags from XEmacs and let people decide (with the distro
providing a default) which ctags implementation to use.
AFAIK, *we* don't care how you solve this. I'm sure there are many
X?Emacs users who use Exuberant ctags for one reason or another, but I
can't recall ever seeing a complaint about XEmacs incompatibility.
Listen to your users as far as the default goes.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:08 p.m.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:52:32 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Tags is an extremely important functionality, and since many systems
where XEmacs may be installed will not normally provide a tags program,
I think it's important that we provide one in the source distro.
I can see how this was true some time ago, but I wonder to which extend
this still is the case. Anyway, your position is clear so that helps to
determine what to do.
AFAIK, *we* don't care how you solve this. I'm sure there
are many
X?Emacs users who use Exuberant ctags for one reason or another, but I
can't recall ever seeing a complaint about XEmacs incompatibility.
I don't have any first-hand experience, but was lead to this belief by
these questions in the exuberant FAQ: http://ctags.sourceforge.net/
faq.html#4
Thanks for the clarification,
Hans
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:18 a.m.
Hans de Graaff writes:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:52:32 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Tags is an extremely important functionality, and since many systems
> where XEmacs may be installed will not normally provide a tags program,
> I think it's important that we provide one in the source distro.
I can see how this was true some time ago, but I wonder to which extend
this still is the case.
It will always be the case: Windows.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:32 a.m.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:18:34 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Hans de Graaff writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:52:32 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> > Tags is an extremely important functionality, and since many
> > systems where XEmacs may be installed will not normally provide a
> > tags program, I think it's important that we provide one in the
> > source distro.
>
> I can see how this was true some time ago, but I wonder to which
> extend this still is the case.
It will always be the case: Windows.
Good point.
Kind regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6151
days inactive
6153
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dr. Volker Zell -
Hans de Graaff -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Stephen J. Turnbull