This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: ctags recursion broken? [ATTN: ctags, xemacs-tags maintainers]
- From: "Thrall, Bryan" <bryan dot thrall at flightsafety dot com>
- To: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Cc: "Thrall, Bryan" <bryan dot thrall at flightsafety dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:05:26 -0600
- Subject: RE: ctags recursion broken? [ATTN: ctags, xemacs-tags maintainers]
Alan Thompson wrote on 2012-12-11:
> Looking at the link on StackOverflow (from 2010) it may be that the
> xemacs version of ctags is overwriting the default version in /bin.
> Could this be the culprit?
Yes, it looks like xemacs-tags and ctags packages both install
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alan Thompson
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hi - Yes, I'm sure:
>>> find /bin -name '*tags*' | xargs ls -ldF
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 85504 Jan 31 2009
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 83968 Jan 31 2009
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 5411 Dec 21 2011
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 68608 Jan 31 2009
>>> ls -ldF /bin/ls /bin/vim /bin/gcc
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 alathompson Domain Users 21 Oct 18 12:20 /bin/gcc ->
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 101902 Feb 6 2012 /bin/ls*
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 alathompson Domain Users 21 Oct 18 12:48 /bin/vim ->
>>> uname -a
>> CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 ALAN-THO-LAP 1.7.16(0.262/5/3) 2012-07-20
> 22:55 i686 Cygwin
>> One can see from the timestamp on the links for gcc and vim that I
>> installed Cygwin on 10/18/2012. However, it seems that both ctags
>> etags are old versions of the program (circa 2007) and are not the
>> Exuberant Ctags version. However, the GNU documentation here:
>> http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Exuberant_Ctags clearly lists the
>> Exuberant Ctags, although it has only been updated as of 2004.
>> However, looking here:
>> http://cygwin.com/packages/ctags/ctags-5.8-1-src we see that cygwin
>> has Exuberant Ctags 5.8. Perhaps it is just a packaging issue that
>> caused the old one to be present and Exuberant Ctags 5.8 to be not
>> You can see from this thread:
>> that I'm not the only one who stumbled onto this problem.
>> Where should we go from here? Could it just be a packaging problem?
>> Alan Thompson
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Thrall, Bryan
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Are you sure you're using the ctags you think you are?
>>> $ ctags --help
>>> Exuberant Ctags 5.8, Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Darren Hiebert
>>> Compiled: Dec 11 2009, 11:42:40 Addresses:
>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org>, http://ctags.sourceforge.net
>>> Optional compiled features: +wildcards, +regex, +internal-sort
>>> Usage: ctags [options] [file(s)]
>>> -R Equivalent to --recurse.
>>> Hope this helps!
>>> Bryan Thrall
>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>> FlightSafety International
Principal Software Engineer
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple