Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes:
> Wed Sep 2 08:08:57 CEST 2009 Eric Kow <[email protected]>
> * Split tags/TAGS target.
> The previous combined target does not appear to generate tag files that
> vim can recognise.
Sorry for the delay in review. There is still one problem...
> -# Always generate both tags and TAGS when the user asks for either,
> -# because lispy doesn't like using the shift key.
> -tags TAGS: $(DARCS_FILES) src/*.c
> - hasktags -b $(filter %.lhs %.hs,$^)
> +tags: $(DARCS_FILES) src/*.c
> + hasktags -c $(filter %.lhs %.hs,$^)
> ctags -a $(filter %.c,$^)
> hunk ./GNUmakefile 48
> + #
> + # If you are an Emacs user: rm tags and make TAGS instead
> + #
As an Emacs user, M-. will prompt you for a TAGS file, but I think it
can also handle tags files (though these contain less information).
I personally wouldn't bother with this warning.
I leave the final decision to you, Eric; I'll accept either.
> +# TAGS is for etags, whereas tags is for ctags
> +TAGS: $(DARCS_FILES) src/*.c
> + hasktags -e $(filter %.lhs %.hs,$^)
> # The test part tells make not to care if etags isn't installed, while
> # still caring about etags crashing. This is a Good Thing because you
> # probably won't have etags installed unless you're an Emacs user.
This comment, and the code associated with it:
|| test $$? -eq 126 -o $$? -eq 127
should go. They were only there so that vi users wouldn't be annoyed by
make trying to run an Emacs-specific program (etags). Now, anyone
asking for TAGS can be assumed to want TAGS, and thus have etags.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
