🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2567@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) writes:
>I had the same question.  WHAT THE F*** IS IT?  Why can't people put
>a ten-line description of "what the f*** it is" in front of source postings?
>(No, the name DOESN'T say it!)

I agree completely!!!

It would be extremely nice to have a "STANDARDIZED" header for source code
postings.  Usefull information might include:

Archive-Name: foobar/doe/2.1/part01
Program-Name: foobar
Program-Type: utility, filter, text processing
Version: 2.1
Date: January 1, 1990
Author: J. Doe
E-Mail: doe@system
O/S-Versions: 4.3BSD:SVR2+
Description:	Foobar is a filter for removing foobars from text documents.
		Foobar will subsitute specified foobars and replace them with
		user supplied strings.
Prerequisites: none

Just think how nice it would be to be able to print a usefull catalog of all
of the public domain software in your possesion or available at your
neighborhood archive site.

If I had a dollar for everytime I tried to figure out what something was, or
what version it was...  Multiply this by the thousands of people out there
who receive this software, and we're talking serious money here. :-)

It seems a shame to spend hundreds of man hours to figure out what the
submitter could have included in the five to ten minutes required to
supply a header.

Do not misunderstand my meaning, I do very much appreceiate the source code
that is posted to usenet.  People who write software and contribute it freely
deserve a great deal of gratitude, but who know better what their software
does than the person writing/submitting it.

-Steve