From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 21 19:05:45 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 6BC0C106568B for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:05:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cokane@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail-out1.fuse.net (mail-out1.fuse.net [216.68.8.175]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D96C8FC08 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:05:44 +0000 (UTC) X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=U43SLuz+mznEeU6k0XtWkcXR9Y++tAUvrsVXj5cPltU= c=1 sm=0 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=FP58Ms26AAAA:8 a=vItJ6SA2AAAA:8 a=k00AjR-Ayg4O1y1qc7IA:9 a=KZvq72kxVkMwIHRqjom7gxFU7_8A:4 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=Iy6FPoR9cBdGrUcJbbIA:9 a=4_Y6dV5647eVma5Ch9ofrtcf4HgA:4 a=LkYvsgB9u1MH7Ao0BLhsLg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: ecout1 smtp.mail=cokane@FreeBSD.org; spf=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (ecout1: transitional domain FreeBSD.org does not designate 74.215.227.9 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.215.227.9] ([74.215.227.9:50883] helo=mail.colemankane.org) by ecout1 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.43 r()) with ESMTP id 87/7A-14944-48EC7BA4; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:05:44 -0400 Received: from [172.20.0.76] (rrcs-96-11-231-210.central.biz.rr.com [96.11.231.210]) by mail.colemankane.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E4191143E; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:09:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Coleman Kane To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <4AB7C396.5050802@quip.cz> References: <20090921173936.65F881CC37@ptavv.es.net> <4AB7C396.5050802@quip.cz> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-B+hkyZAzvaqT1VSVR0LQ" Organization: FreeBSD Project Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:05:24 -0400 Message-Id: <1253559924.2236.6.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Cc: Ed Schouten , current@FreeBSD.org, arch@FreeBSD.org, Kevin Oberman 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 19:05:45 -0000 --=-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 > >>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--