From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 21 18:37:39 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 E1E7E106566B for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:37:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E2D8FC1C for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.codelab.cz [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA04719E027; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:19:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (r5bb235.net.upc.cz [86.49.61.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDB1119E019; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:19:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4AB7C396.5050802@quip.cz> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:19:02 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: cz, cs, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Oberman References: <20090921173936.65F881CC37@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: <20090921173936.65F881CC37@ptavv.es.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ed Schouten , current@FreeBSD.org, arch@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 18:37:40 -0000 Kevin Oberman wrote: >>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. +1 from me. I am daily screen(1) user but I think it (tmux or screen) should stay as port. It is better to have minimalistic base and easily upgradable ports. Miroslav Lachman