Re: [MiNT] Proposition

[kellis <kellis@leading.net>]

On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Michael Schwingen wrote:

> I think it is a bad idea to do this via environment variables, since it is
> unflexible, and requires a central authority to make sure what variables
> should be used for what purpose.
unflexible? how can it be improve?
Well see my point.
Define global env (for default settings).
then any process can overwrite that.
As in, let's say:
$MANPAGE is set to /usr/share/man
But if from THING you want to have it access another one. 
Just highlight manx (whatever GEM app) and set some other env.

Or, work as multiuser. like I have 3 accounts here (GEM). all the env are
set per user basis here.
Or from THING for some special case. Very flexible if you ask me.

> 
> Why not simply use /etc/mailcap? The version on my Linux machine contains
> (among others):
/etc/mailcap looks like chinese to edit efficiently. ALso it is a global
one. As in the user kellis can't edit the mailcap file.

> 
> text/html; /usr/bin/lynx -force_html %s; needsterminal; description=HTML Text; nametemplate=%s.html

defeats the whole purpose of GEM/Unix combo.
Env is 1 thing they have in common and they are integrated very well.
I am just proposing a more compact known env list that everyone should
stick to it.

> OK, you could set this via an env variable, however, the POP server may
> change depending on what dialup connection I use right now, or there may be
> multiple accounts on multiple servers, so an env variable seems too
> unflexible for this purpose to me.
any user can overwrite an env for his local setting. I don';t think this
is not unflexible.