Bug 36619

Summary:	tin missing in redhat-7.1
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Borislav Deianov <borislav>
Component:	tin	Assignee:	Preston Brown <pbrown>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	7.1	CC:	ak, teg
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2001-04-19 04:39:46 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Borislav Deianov 2001-04-19 04:39:42 UTC

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0-test11 i686; Nav)


Tin is a full-featured text-based news reader. Tin is actively
developed - latest stable release on April 9, 2001; latest development
snapshot on March 7, 2001. Tin has been present in Redhat Linux at
least from 5.2 (I can't find a mirror of older releases) to 7.1 beta
but is missing in the final 7.1 release.

What is the rationale for removing it and are there plans to add it
back?

Comment 1 Trond Eivind Glomsrxd 2001-04-20 18:45:53 UTC

License problems - read the ones on top of the source files.

Comment 2 Alex Kanavin 2001-05-09 17:58:07 UTC

Tin development branch (1.5 series) no longer has this nasty 'you can't profit
from tin' condition and uses BSD-like license instead, so I think it is possible
to add tin back into the distro.

Comment 3 Trond Eivind Glomsrxd 2001-05-09 18:03:04 UTC

When it's released, it will be evaluated for inclusion like other apps.

Comment 4 Alex Kanavin 2001-05-09 20:50:36 UTC

Is there any info on how does the evaluation process look like? What's taken
into account? And how's the list of candidates formed?

Comment 5 Alex Kanavin 2003-08-10 16:50:07 UTC

A couple weeks ago tin 1.6 was released - it's the new stable branch. So could
you please reevaluate it?