Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:20879 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:1275 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!rutgers!pyrnj!dasys1!tneff From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: DESCRIBE.TXT Message-ID: <7409@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 4 Nov 88 05:54:39 GMT References: <7377@dasys1.UUCP> Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Organization: Independent Users Guild Lines: 41 In article nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >How about "pkxarc *.arc *.dsc", which gives a real quick look at all of >the archive files in the subdirectory? How about "zoo lc *" which does the same thing for ZOO files? You put in the comments. Sounds like you're trying to reinvent ZOO features in an ARC context. If you have enough control over your archive system to disrupt distribution packages by inserting alien files in other people's ARCs, why not just convert them to ZOOs where you have the complete freedom to include quick & easy descriptions. Even in arc-land, how about "arce * readme /p | more", which pages you through the readme files? (I don't know whether the odious Katzware shares this basic functionality.) > ... There is usually no attempt in a >README file to be succint, nor is there any easy way for a sysop to >distill a README file into a 40 column description. With a .dsc file, >the sysop can merely do a 'head -1' on it to get the 40 column description. Fine, sounds reasonable enough, tantamount to a BBS download directory. Of course you could just give the folks a descriptive catalog text file to scan. Too simple? Or, as I mention above, there are ZOO comments. >README is insufficient to convince lusers why they would want to bother ^^^^^^ >with a package. I want something where my lusers can do a quick scan ... ^^^^^^ To paraphrase the famous Dorothy Parker review of Milne: Tonstant Newsweader fwowed up. Gawd but I hate this attitude. If there were not specific technical issues alive here we would be in alt.flame as of that line. Let it pass. >Wasn't I being clear enough? No, but now you are. You can get what you want by using a better package than ARC; the namespace issue with *.DSC vs README is nonexistent because collisions only happen if the file handling is inept; the BBS-style descriptive catalog is a user-friendly thing to want to build, but there are easier ways than poking your own cribsheet into everyone else's envelope.