🚀 go-pugleaf

Kent,

Thanks for organizing comp.sources.misc and for taking the trouble
to improve it as with the Environment header. In response to your
questions.

1. I think it should be used ALWAYS (or almost :-)

2. As many lines as it takes. (People who don't agree with 1 or 2
can set their newsreaders to show only header lines they want to see).

3. One classification I noticed missing was POSIX (unless that was
meant to be the "works on all Unix" :-)

Also there might be scope for including named software packages
that the item requires even when they are not operating systems,
shells or libraries. (e.g. various graphics packages use pbm).

Perhaps a separate header line for Requires: to include any
package name and version number without controls, while
Environment: is restricted to a controlled thesaurus of keywords
that are listed monthly.

Finally I would suggest you get in touch the Library of Congress
or some local research library and ask for advice about the
methods used and proposed for cataloging computer software
(or "computer data files"). There is also a mailing list
PACS-L%UHUPVM1.bitnet@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU for a public access
computer systems forum that would have relevant contacts,
which published a paper on cataloging of online information
resources and included the following address:

Sally H McCallum, Chief
Network Development and MARC Standards Office, LM 639
Library of Congress
Washington DC 2050

smcc@seq1.loc.gov

--
Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server)
Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au