Re: tmux(1) in base

Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:26:57 +0200
>>From: Ed Schouten <ed_at_80386.nl>
>>Sender: owner-freebsd-current_at_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