Your message dated Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:26:11 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#160444: Packages avaible
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; 11 Sep 2002 00:43:38 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Sep 10 19:43:38 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from pd9504621.dip.t-dialin.net (annuminas.middle-earth.fan)
[217.80.70.33]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17ovbW-0006oN-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:43:38 -0500
Received: from alex by annuminas.middle-earth.fan with local (Exim 3.35 #1
(Debian))
id 17ovbu-0007ty-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:44:02 +0200
From: Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ITP: opencola -- the Opencola soft drink formula
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:44:01 +0200
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-09-11
Severity: wishlist
* Package name : opencola
Version : 1.1.3
Upstream Author : Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.opencola.com/products/3_softdrink/
* License : GPL
Description : the Opencola soft drink formula
This is a gpl'ed formula for making a soft drink. Yes, with this formula you
can brew your own sweet, caffeinated fluid, mostly used for drinking it with
ice.
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux annuminas 2.4.18 #1 Fri Aug 16 02:16:00 CEST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=de_DE.ISO-8859-1, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 160444-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Apr 2004 21:27:19 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Apr 13 14:27:19 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from gondolin.schmehl.info [81.2.133.99]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BDVR9-0000ZU-00; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:27:19 -0700
Received: from [217.234.74.201] (helo=esgaroth.schmehl.info)
by gondolin.schmehl.info with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1BDVR0-0005gC-00; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:27:10 +0200
Received: from alex by esgaroth.schmehl.info with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1BDVQ3-0001kY-00; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:26:11 +0200
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:26:11 +0200
From: Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#160444: Packages avaible
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/3yNEOqWowh/8j+e"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Sender: Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
--/3yNEOqWowh/8j+e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good morning,
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040413 20:22]:
> > I agree, we don't =BBneed=AB it. I would say, it is a nice to have, whi=
ch
> > doesn't hurt.
> Well, it does hurt. It means Debian needs more CDs, the Packages file
> gets bigger, etc.
Well, I don't see this as a big problem, since we are talking about
44KB.
However since I think of it only as a "nice to have", and the availability =
of
packages habe been archivied, I'm going to close the itp.
Hmm, thinking a bit further it might be not a good idea, to have such a
recipt. We couldn't by a cola at any event any more, without risking to
hear bad jokes about Debian using non-free coke ;)
Yours sincerely,
Alexander
--/3yNEOqWowh/8j+e
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAfFrziSG13M0VqIMRAg9bAJ0XrgKoc8ItBTHyUTXmQFubcqWH+QCffCrl
l3ZxXYqA70LojgVwA0zvoE0=
=EeK/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--/3yNEOqWowh/8j+e--
