Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!opal!net
From: net@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Help define Environment: usage in c.s.m
Message-ID: <3524@kraftbus.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: 30 May 91 13:57:20 GMT
References: <1991May26.041741.22210@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> <1991May29.203238.21594@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Lines: 29

wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
> >        Environment: Keyword [, keyword ..]
> 
> I think that some version information should be included in cases where
> it matters.  SVR3 vs SVR4, X11R3 vs X11R3 and MS-DOS3.0 vs MS-DOS4.0 are
> some examples. This could be done with version specific keywords, but I
> think this is a bad idea. Instead, the syntax for keywords might be
> extended with an optional '=version' part, for example MS-DOS=4.0,
> SYSV=R3, X=R3, BSD=4.3-tahoe.

I find the whole idea of listing the required versions in a header of
the news article absurd.

Suppose I have a software package that runs under SunOS X, where
X >= 3.4 and X <= 4.1.1, 4.[23] BSD, System V Release 3, Ultrix, HP-UX,
and several others; it requires X11 Release 3 or X11 Release 4,
OSF/Motif 1.0 or Motif 1.1, but Motif 1.1 only together with X11
Release 4, further OpenWindows 2.0 with HyperNeWS 1.4 or later (but
optionally), and so on.

So what exactly would I have to put in the `Environment:' header?

The requirements on the environment are rarely so simple that they can
be expressed in a single header line with only a handful of predefined
symbols.

--
    Oliver Laumann,  Technical University of Berlin,  Germany.
    net@tub.cs.tu-berlin.de   net@tub.UUCP   ol@gnu.ai.mit.edu