From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 21 17:39:56 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5DA61065672; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:39:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from mailgw.es.net (mail4.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:6000:6::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9865E8FC12; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:39:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [IPv6:2001:400:910::29]) by mailgw.es.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8LHdaZ5009989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:39:37 -0700 Received: from ptavv.es.net (ptavv.es.net [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 65F881CC37; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:39:36 -0700 (PDT) To: Ed Schouten In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:26:57 +0200." <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:39:36 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20090921173936.65F881CC37@ptavv.es.net> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2009-09-21_10:2009-09-17, 2009-09-21, 2009-09-21 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-0909210084 Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tmux(1) in base X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:39:57 -0000 > Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:26:57 +0200 > From: Ed Schouten > 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? 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.) 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 think adding things to the base is best avoided. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751