Bug 36619 - tin missing in redhat-7.1
Summary: tin missing in redhat-7.1
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: tin   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 7.1
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Preston Brown
QA Contact:
Keywords: FutureFeature
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2001-04-19 04:39 UTC by Borislav Deianov
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:32 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2001-04-19 04:39:46 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

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

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?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.