Re: tmux(1) in base

I'm particurly impressed at the striped red and blue paint that
has been liberally applied to the shed.

On 2009-Sep-23 11:31:19 +0200, "Svein Skogen (listmail account)" <svein-listmail_at_stillbilde.net> wrote:
>Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
>> don't propose zsh(1) replacing sh(1). I just think it would be handy to
>> have zsh(1) in the base system. Not replacing sh(1), but as one
>> more piece of software.

I personally use zsh as my interactive shell but I don't think it
belongs in the base system.  IMHO, the base system only needs a
single, POSIX-compliant shell - so it is already over-endowed.

>Wouldn't that bring back (among others) perl into the base? I seem to
>remember there was some effort spent on removing that a while ago...

There were two main reasons for removing perl:
1) Perl was undergoing rapid development at a rate that was not
   compatible with the FreeBSD release schedule - so the base
   version of perl was out-of-date.
2) The FreeBSD base system must be able to be cross-built (this is
   needed to support upgrading even within the same architecture).
   Perl is not intended to be cross-built and the effort involved
   in shoe-horning it into the buildworld process was becoming too
   onerous - especially since it needed to be reworked for each
   new perl release.

As for tmux(1) vs screen(1) vs window(1): I don't see any compelling
reason for any of these to belong in the base system.  (And, if you
rely solely on the pkg-descr for those tools, there doesn't appear
to be any need for those tools at all unless you are using a real
glass TTY on a headless system.  Talking to people who use them, it
appears that the only useful feature in screen/tmux isn't mentioned
in the pkg-descr).

-- 
Peter Jeremy