Hi,
"Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I added rudimentary support for different implementations of etags (read
> the one Automake expects and Exuberent etags) since they take slightly
> different options. Exuberent etags is the version distributed with
> RedHat Linux 6.2 & I believe Debian and a few others.
>
> What version of etags was Automake expecting and where can I get it?
I guess it expects to find the version that's distributed as part of
Emacs.
> I added a macro to test for the presence of etags and whether it
> supports "--etags-include=<file>" or "-i <file>" for includes.
If Exuberent etags is supposed to be a drop-in replacement for Emacs
etags, it should support the same options. Otherwise, it is a bug in
the distribution if it gives you a "non-standard" etags (you can call
the Emacs etags the "standard").
- Hari
--
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"When all else fails, read the instructions." -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing." -- Roy L Ash
