Smool tool to set the window and icon titles of terminal emulator windows like those of xterm, eterm and Terminal.app (MacOS X).
I don't object to this port, however I would like to point out that this functionality exists already in every modern shell I can think of. For example: http://dougbarton.net/Bash/Bash-prompts.txt
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Doug Barton wrote: > I don't object to this port, however I would like to point out > that this functionality exists already in every modern shell I can think > of. For example: ...and when it doesn't they can just call printf(1). New users however may not know how to do it - it doesn't realy worry me one way or the other though. Andrew
State Changed From-To: open->feedback Why do we need this port? The following shell script can set XTerm titles without the overhead of a port: function title { echo -n '^[]0;' echo -n $1 echo -n '^G' }
In message <200204210310.g3L3A2E31747@freefall.freebsd.org>, Andrew writes: > The following reply was made to PR ports/37290; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Andrew <andrew@ugh.net.au> > To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> > Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: ports/37290: New port: tool for setting the title of xterms > Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:58:41 +1000 (EST) > > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Doug Barton wrote: > > > I don't object to this port, however I would like to point out > > that this functionality exists already in every modern shell I can think > > of. For example: > > ...and when it doesn't they can just call printf(1). New users however may > not know how to do it - it doesn't realy worry me one way or the other > though. I do object because it doesn't add any functionality that we cannot already do using other more simple means, yet it adds bloat to our ports tree. Unless you object, I will close the PR. Cheers, Phone: 250-387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: 250-387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/Alpha Team Email: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, CITS Ministry of Management Services Province of BC FreeBSD UNIX: cy@FreeBSD.org
State Changed From-To: feedback->open Everyone knows my opinion about this. If the majority wants it, I won't stand in anyones way of committing this.
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Andrew wrote: > Shall we rewrite all programs in the Bourne shell? No, just the parts of the base that rely on perl. :) > There are a number that could be. I don't really mind if it gets > commited or not but I thought it should be the end users choice as to > what they install or if they wirte scripts to do what they need. The question isn't what we allow the users to use (of course), it's about what we support in the ports tree. Given that (as far as I know) csh-derived shells can also do this without help, and this functionality is already provided by another program in ports, this port is redundant, and probably shouldn't be included. Doug
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:39:51PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > There are a number that could be. I don't really mind if it gets > > commited or not but I thought it should be the end users choice as to > > what they install or if they wirte scripts to do what they need. > > The question isn't what we allow the users to use (of course), > it's about what we support in the ports tree. Given that (as far as I > know) csh-derived shells can also do this without help, and this > functionality is already provided by another program in ports, this port > is redundant, and probably shouldn't be included. This argument shows that there is confusion what the ports collection is for. As far as I see it (feel free to discuss this) The ports collection-skeleton (the directory structure, the makefiles), that's maintained by the FreeBSD team. But the actual ports itself, they're maintained by their maintainers. Sometimes the persons who made them, sometimes the persons who use them and who want to give something back to the FreeBSD community. There are ports which add something new to the operating system (a webserver, a newsserver), there are ports which improve the current utilities on the operating system (shells, utilities, editors) and there are ports which replace things in the opearting system (MTAs, X-servers, gcc). Besides that, there are multiple versions of the same ports (with and without IPv6, newer versions of a programming language or toolkit) and there are multiple ports of the same functionality (webservers, webbrowsers, instant messagers). Refusing a port because there is something with the same functionality is not done, towards the person who put effort in it to port it (I remember my first port) and towards the future (if the port currently available is removed from the distribution point and the author isn't reachable anymore). So yeah, if it was up to me then all the ports submitted would be accepted, regardless of their functionality. The only reason not to accept a port is because on technical grounds (isn't fetchable, doesn't compile), not on functionality. Just my 2 cents, Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.MavEtJu.org edwin@mavetju.org | Interested in MUDs? Visit Fatal Dimensions: bash$ :(){ :|:&};: | http://www.FatalDimensions.org/
State Changed From-To: open->closed Commited, thanks!