Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:05:24 -0400 From: Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.org> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, current@FreeBSD.org, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tmux(1) in base Message-ID: <1253559924.2236.6.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <4AB7C396.5050802@quip.cz> References: <20090921173936.65F881CC37@ptavv.es.net> <4AB7C396.5050802@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-B+hkyZAzvaqT1VSVR0LQ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 20:19 +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Kevin Oberman wrote: > >>Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:26:57 +0200 > >>From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> > >>Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > >> > >>Hi all, > >> > >>At the DevSummit in Cambridge we briefly discussed including tmux(1) in > >>the base system. We recently had window(1) there, but unfortunately > >>window(1) was a very limited tool, compared to tools like screen(1) and > >>tmux(1). Why tmux(1) and not screen(1)? Well, simple. The first has a > >>better license and very active maintenance. > >> > >>I was talking with the author on IRC the other day and it seemed like I > >>spoke with him at a fortunate moment, because he was just about to > >>release version 1.0. I think it would be nice to import this into HEAD, > >>which means FreeBSD 9.0 (maybe 8.1?) will include it by default. > >> > >>How to test tmux in base: > >> > >>- Download this tarball and extract it to contrib/tmux: > >> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/tmux/tmux-1.0.tar.gz > >>- Apply the following patch: > >> http://80386.nl/pub/tmux.diff > >> > >>Comments? > >=20 > >=20 > > While I make fairly heavy use of screen(1), I am unclear on why this > > functionality should be included in the base. I can (and do) install it > > on most systems I build, but I can't see any systemic justification for > > putting it in the base system. It just makes updating tmux > > harder. Remember the fun of dealing with Perl when it was in the base > > system? (Yes, Perl was probably about the worst possible case.)=20 > >=20 > > Unless a tool is maintained by the FreeBSD project or is so essential > > that most it would be inadvisable to have a base system where it was > > not available (ntp, SSL libraries, C compiler, ssh, ...), I really thin= k > > adding things to the base is best avoided. >=20 > +1 from me. >=20 > I am daily screen(1) user but I think it (tmux or screen) should stay as=20 > port. It is better to have minimalistic base and easily upgradable ports. >=20 > Miroslav Lachman I agree with this. I would prefer it if more stuff would get relegated to ports (such as sendmail), and I am not really interested in seeing the base system expanded with yet another tool. If I really needed screen or tmux on a system that I was installing from disk, I would make sure to have it written to a packages ISO with all the other third-party applications that I need. I also feel that ports is a more visible place for such a tool to live if ever in the future the community needs someone to take over its maintenance. --=20 Coleman Kane --=-B+hkyZAzvaqT1VSVR0LQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkq3zm8ACgkQcMSxQcXat5dHJACfRYk019Sy+BXmY0ZF0RskzcJ0 9xIAniPzT22oHG5/bzqnTfmfS859gkDd =YhpR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-B+hkyZAzvaqT1VSVR0LQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1253559924.2236.6.camel>