Darryl Okahata [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For that matter, why is gnucash even trying to use either?
Some people don't have ctags or etags, and, has been pointed out,
may have buggy implementations. If some programmer wants to use
ctags or etags, they can manually use them. It's not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I got a crash from the etags program during compile:
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/chs/lib/gnucash/gnucash-1.5'
find . -name '*.[ch]' -o -name '*.scm' | sort etags.files.tmp
TAGS file list hasn't changed.
make TAGS.stamp
make[3]: Entering directory
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:25:57 -0800, Christian Stimming
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Christian I got a crash from the etags program during compile:
Christian make[2]: Entering directory
Christian `/home/chs/lib/gnucash/gnucash-1.5' find . -name '*.[ch]'
Christian -o -name '*.scm' | sort
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tuesday 27 February 2001 10:59, James LewisMoss wrote:
etags != ctags
ctags produces a vi tags file. etags produces an emacs tags file.
I don't agree.
chs@cmobile:~ ctags --help
Exuberant Ctags 3.3.1, by Darren Hiebert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
-e
Christian Stimming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2001 10:59, James LewisMoss wrote:
etags != ctags
ctags produces a vi tags file. etags produces an emacs tags file.
I don't agree.
For that matter, why is gnucash even trying to use either? Some
people don't
Darryl Okahata writes:
Christian Stimming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 27 February 2001 10:59, James LewisMoss wrote:
etags != ctags
ctags produces a vi tags file. etags produces an emacs tags file.
I don't agree.
For that matter, why is gnucash even
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Graham Merkel) wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think having a tags file is very
useful, and IIRC it's a very small part of the time required to do the
build.
Oh, certainly. It's definitely useful. However:
* It's certainly not needed to build
