ctags(1) missing

[blfs-bugs@…]

BLFS (as well as the base LFS) is missing an implementation of ctags(1), a standard Unix utility since the days of 3.0BSD.

An advanced, GPLed implementation can be found at ​http://ctags.sf.net.

[iwanek@…]

ctags (and etags) are installed by emacs

[blfs-bugs@…]

Yes, but many people (like me) will not bother to install emacs at all; furthermore, from what I know, the emacs implementation of ctags is inferior to the one linked above. I may be wrong on that last statement, though.

[billyoc@…]

We don't have most developer tools in the BLFS book, just the tools I use during an ordinary day would require another book the size of BLFS. Developers know what tools they need to install and how to install them. The ctags utility is among these.

[blfs-bugs@…]

Admittedly, developers will generally know what utilities they need, where to get them from and how to install them, but that statement holds true for more or less any package contained in BLFS, so I don't think that's a valid argument. And ctags is not a special and obscure developer tool, anyway; it's something that should be part of any decent Unix system.

[billyoc@…]

I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you why these things aren't in the book.

[blfs-bugs@…]

I see. Maybe there should be a BBLFS project, then...

[lfsbill@…]

A BBLFS project? We have that! It's called "your distro, your rules". In case you are not aware, we are not building "any decent *IX" system in LFS or BLFS. The project does build a *very decent* system that is ready for *you* to customize in any fashion you desire. It does not, and never will, try to satisfy a parochial definition of "any decent *IX" system.

As mentioned in a post to the list, this should be opened as a discussion on the list if you want to have some package added.

The the cummunity, the editors and your self can discuss the pros and cons and decide if it should be included. Whether or not somebody installs emacs is also a non-argument, as is the argument about whether the emacs version is inferior to one preferred by one.

What is germain is that this has *not* been proposed and discussed on the lists and is *totally* inappropriate as a bug!

[blfs-bugs@…]

Rubbish. Not having a standard tool that you can expect on a Unix system by default definitely is an issue that I think deserves to be called a bug; outside of that, if you don't want your bugtracker to be used by people filing issues, then don't open one. It kinda defeats the purpose of having a tracker to disapprove of people using it, ne?

And regarding "your distro, your rules", well, yes - of course I could install the tool myself. But then, by the same reasoning, the whole BLFS (and even LFS) project could be declared obsolete, which quite obviously is pointless.

So, if you don't want to include a decent ctags version in the system (in particular for those who don't want to install emacs), then just close this bug as WONTFIX and stop whining.

[lfsbill@…]

"Then just close this bug as WONTFIX and stop whining". Sorry, I didn't realize that disagreeing with you and being under the impression that we used a different process for determining inclusion of new packages constituted whining. If I had known that was the mentality involved here, I would not have wasted anybody's time. And I certainly would not have wasted mine.

[tushar@…]

Discuss on blfs-dev before making a decision.

[bdubbs@…]

Milestone old deleted