Re: tmux(1) in base

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 <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

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.

-- 
Coleman Kane