Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!fernwood!uupsi!sunic!fuug!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!wirzeniu
From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Help define Environment: usage in c.s.m
Message-ID: <1991Jun3.104522.20549@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 3 Jun 91 10:45:22 GMT
References: <1991May26.041741.22210@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> <1991May29.203238.21594@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <3524@kraftbus.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 26

In article <3524@kraftbus.cs.tu-berlin.de> net@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann) writes:
>I find the whole idea of listing the required versions in a header of
>the news article absurd.
>[ an example of lots of required versions ]

A good point. The version numbers shouldn't be specified except when
they are 'really' required, for instance, when the software makes heavy
use of a feature available only in one version of the OS. An example of
this might be disk editors for MS-DOS that won't work with version 4.01.

>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.

On the other hand, it might be enough just to specify the environments
in a 'grand scale' in the header line (and, presumably, the meticulous
detail in the body the article, in the README or whatever) even in these
'radical' cases.  A simpler syntax for the header line would mean less
work for the moderator, and therefore (for comp.sources.misc) shorter
turnaround time.  Even a simple 'Environments:' would make it easier to
skip programs that won't run in one's own environment.

The more I think about it, the more agree with you that the version
number idea isn't so good.
-- 
Lars Wirzenius     wirzeniu@cc.helsinki.fi