Your message dated Thu, 9 Sep 1999 09:54:32 +0000 (GMT)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Closing Bug report]
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'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Sep 1998 20:56:41 +0000
Received: (qmail 10607 invoked from network); 18 Sep 1998 20:56:38 -0000
Received: from bittersweet.inetarena.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 1998 20:56:38 -0000
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by bittersweet.inetarena.com (8.9.1/8.9.1/Debian/GNU) id NAA06508;
Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:56:28 -0700
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:56:28 -0700
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: tkman: should not depend on lpr
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.1.6
Package: tkman
Version: 2.0.6-3
`tkman' should not depend absolutely on `lpr'; it should only suggest
it. Why encourage people to waste paper printing manual pages? It's
very difficult to grep a printed page.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.0
Kernel Version: Linux bittersweet 2.0.35 #12 Fri Aug 14 01:57:33 PDT 1998 i586
unknown
Versions of the packages tkman depends on:
ii lprng 3.4.2-5 lpr/lpd printer spooling system
^^^ (Provides virtual package lpr)
