Re: Cleaner way to not build the ctags that ships with emacs?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:48:41 +0100
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Ulrich Mueller <address@hidden>
> 
> >> Wouldn't that argument apply to etags as well?
> 
> > No, because the Exuberant program is named "ctags", not "etags".
> 
> Sorry, but I don't understand. Exuberant installs a ctags binary and
> (if configured with the --enable-etags option) an etags symlink
> pointing to it.
> 
> Why would the argument be different for the case of two separate
> binaries, as opposed to one binary and a symlink to it? Either way,
> there will be name (and file) collisions.

Because I think there's no reason nowadays to invoke ctags that comes
with Emacs, which is not true for etags.  And also because the default
name of Exuberant program is ctags, not etags.