Re: ctags recursion broken? [ATTN: ctags, xemacs-tags maintainers]

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

[Redirected to cygwin-apps]

On Dec 11 14:05, Thrall, Bryan wrote:
> 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
> /usr/bin/ctags.exe:
> 
> http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=ctags.exe

Oh boy, how long do we have this collisions?  For years, it seems.

FWIW, I'd prefer to keep Exuberant ctags since that's what is part
of most Linux installations as well.

Volker, would you mind a lot to obsolete the xemacs-tags package
in favor of the ctags package?


Thanks,
Corinna


> 
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alan Thompson
> > <...> wrote:
> >> Hi - Yes, I'm sure:
> >> 
> >>> find /bin -name '*tags*' | xargs ls -ldF
> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 85504 Jan 31  2009
> /bin/ctags.exe*
> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 83968 Jan 31  2009
> /bin/etags.exe*
> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users  5411 Dec 21  2011
> /bin/ocamltags*
> >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 alathompson Domain Users 68608 Jan 31  2009
> > /bin/ootags.exe*
> >>> ls -ldF /bin/ls /bin/vim /bin/gcc
> >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 alathompson Domain Users     21 Oct 18 12:20 /bin/gcc ->
> >> /etc/alternatives/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 ->
> >> /etc/alternatives/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
> and
> >> 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
> >> present?
> >> 
> >> You can see from this thread:
> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2634001/any-idea-why-ctags-wont-
> > recurse-on-cygwin/13810472#13810472
> >>  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
> >> <...> 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:
> >>>   <dhiebert@users.sourceforge.net>, http://ctags.sourceforge.net
> >>>   Optional compiled features: +wildcards, +regex, +internal-sort
> >>> Usage: ctags [options] [file(s)]
> >>> <snip>
> >>>   -R   Equivalent to --recurse.
> >>> <snip>
> >>> 
> >>> Hope this helps!
> >>> --
> >>> Bryan Thrall