Your message dated Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:29:13 +1000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line About to be 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 submit) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Sep 2003 00:28:40 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 04 19:28:38 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 200-246-46-149.papalegua.com.br (papalegua-5.papalegua.com.br)
[200.246.46.149]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19v4Ss-0005mF-00; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:28:38 -0500
Received: (qmail 32747 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2003 00:28:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO debian-rlinux) (200.228.71.30)
by papalegua-5.papalegua.com.br with SMTP; 5 Sep 2003 00:28:30 -0000
Received: from rlinux by debian-rlinux with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19v4Wm-0000C3-00; Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:32:40 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
From: Rodrigo Tadeu Claro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ITA: gshield
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.18
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:32:36 -0300
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Rodrigo Tadeu Claro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_8_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-04
Severity: normal
I am Brazilian and would very like to be the new mantendor of this
package. Currently I am member of the group of Debian-BR users
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux debian-rlinux 2.4.18-bf2.4 #1 Son Apr 14 09:53:28 CEST 2002 i586
Locale: LANG=pt_BR, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 208759-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Oct 2003 06:29:37 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 13 01:29:36 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from bangpath.uucico.de [195.71.9.197]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A8wD2-0000Ri-00; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:29:36 -0500
Received: by bangpath.uucico.de (Postfix, from userid 10)
id 5B25126BA0; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:29:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by deprecation.cyrius.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 5F55BFE99; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:29:13 +1000 (EST)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:29:13 +1000
From: Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: About to be removed
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_09
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Bug #204729 says that firehol is a better alternative to gshield, and
hence I've requested the removal of gshield now.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
