Your message dated Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:45:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line removed
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Dec 2002 22:43:55 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Dec 08 16:43:55 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 80-25-29-74.uc.nombres.ttd.es (orm-embar.terramar.selidor.net) 
[80.25.29.74] 
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
        id 18LA9S-0000De-00; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 16:43:54 -0600
Received: from ivan by orm-embar.terramar.selidor.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 
(Debian))
        id 18LA8w-0000jU-00; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:43:22 +0100
From: Ivan Vilata i Balaguer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: wn: New stable release 2.4.4
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:43:22 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Ivan Vilata i Balaguer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0
        tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
        version=2.41
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: wn
Version: N/A; reported 2002-12-08
Severity: wishlist

    Hi, I would only want to point out that there is a new stable
  version of wn, which can be downloaded from:

        http://www.wnserver.org/wn-2.4.4.tar.gz

  Thanks,
    Ivan

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux orm-embar 2.4.18orm #1 ds nov 2 13:40:52 CET 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=ca_ES, LC_CTYPE=ca_ES


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 172291-done) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Mar 2004 20:45:44 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 08 12:45:44 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from sorgfalt.net (mail.sorgfalt.net) [217.160.169.191] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1B0RdA-0004vm-00; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:45:44 -0800
Received: from pd953086c.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.83.8.108] helo=djpig.djpig.de)
        by mail.sorgfalt.net with asmtp 
        (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 (Sorgfalt))
        id 1B0Rd8-00006J-00; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:45:43 +0100
Received: from djpig by djpig.djpig.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
        id 1B0Rd0-0007xb-00; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:45:34 +0100
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:45:34 +0100
From: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
        [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: removed
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_08 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=none autolearn=no 
        version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_08
X-Spam-Level: 

wn was removed from Debian unstable today. Closing its bugs.

[Date: Mon,  8 Mar 2004 14:12:35 -0500] [ftpmaster: James Troup]
Removed the following packages from unstable:

wn |    2.2.9-3 | source, alpha, arm, hppa, hurd-i386, i386,
                  ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
Closed bugs: 194026

------------------- Reason -------------------
RoQA; orphaned for 300 days, needs to be repackaged, out of date
with upstream.
----------------------------------------------

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Reply via email to