Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Help define Environment: usage in c.s.m
Message-ID: <10460.Jun1518.42.0491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 18:42:04 GMT
References: <1991May26.041741.22210@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> <20585:Jun1203:03:5491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <19379@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: IR
Lines: 23

In article <19379@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
> >    Wont-Work-With: non-POSIX, non-BSD
> Which is the same as
> Works-With: POSIX Compliant BSD Systems.

But I thought the idea was to have at least some semi-standard keywords,
not a mishmash of ``compliant'' and ``system'' and so on created anew
for each package.

> The set of environments that the software is likley to execute on is
> far smaller than the set of environment that it will execute on.

That's not important. What's important is the size of the *description*
of the set of unsupported environments.

How about a compromise:

   Requires: POSIX & BSD-derived, or Interactive, or 3B2
   But-Wont-Work-With: SunOS<4.0.3, Convex UNIX<8.0

(Note that we have to distinguish between BSD and BSD-derived.)

---Dan