Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:06:42 +0200 From: Nick Hibma <nick@van-laarhoven.org> To: current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tmux(1) in base Message-ID: <37B47737-E4A4-4CF3-9DAA-B0F0A4CC8901@van-laarhoven.org> In-Reply-To: <20090922082344.GA64877@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <4AB7ED76.5010406@FreeBSD.org> <20090922082344.GA64877@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Rather than going down the road of putting everything that some >> subset >> of our developer base thinks makes a system "usable" into the base I >> would like to suggest that the effort be spent on improving the >> installation tools such that making a system "usable" out of the box >> is a matter of ticking off a few boxes at install time. That change >> will benefit a whole lot more users than installing one more user >> land >> tool into the base. > > I completely agree While pondering a +1 for tmux in the base system, I realised that the first thing I install is bash and vim, but the existing tools are suitable for booting a system. Another argument against including it is compilation time: It takes more than 10 seconds to compile tmux (I expected it to be 1 source file to be compiled, silly me) on my Hamster-powered (tm) server, so it would add a significant of overhead to buildworld. Our package system is a tremendous asset, and wholeheartedly agree with Doug on this. So my vote is now a -1. Not that anyone cares. Nick P.S.: I've added 'tmux' to the default packages of our nanobsd image build system. Thanks for the suggestion!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37B47737-E4A4-4CF3-9DAA-B0F0A4CC8901>