Am Thursday 12 March 2009 11:13:00 schrieb Guus Sliepen: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:56:01PM +0100, Karl Ferdinand Ebert wrote: > > * Package name : tmux > > Description : an alternative to screen, licensed under 3-BSD > > The short description should stand on its own, not reference other > software. You can mention this package's relation with screen in the long > description. You also should not mention its license in the long or short > description, that's what the copyright file is for. The short description > should probably just be "terminal multiplexer". The short description had been "terminal multiplexer" from the first packaging attempts but I did not know it had to be the line in the bug report. The long description is extended with details from the FAQ: * How is tmux different from GNU screen? What else does it offer? tmux offers several advantages over screen: - a clearly-defined client-server model: windows are independent entities which may be attached simultaneously to multiple sessions and viewed from multiple clients (terminals), as well as moved freely between sessions within the same tmux server; - a consistent, well-documented command interface, with the same syntax whether used interactively, as a key binding, or from the shell; - easily scriptable from the shell; - multiple paste buffers; - choice of vim or emacs key layouts; - an option to limit the window size; - a more usable status line syntax, with the ability to display the first line of output of a specific command; - a cleaner, modern, easily extended, BSD-licensed codebase. From Williams' email: > What does this have over screen, other than being BSD licensed? answered above. > The design of tmux seems less secure, too. In which way is it less secure? My first contact with this package was on a OpenBSD mallinglist, as I followed those discussions some developers where involved. (I do not mean it is more secure by that but I appreciate their code in general) Regards, Ferdinand
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.