Your message dated Thu, 13 May 2004 19:05:37 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line libxalan-java
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; 8 Jul 2003 11:53:30 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 08 06:53:28 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from n02p127.netcamp.se (chrystal.opal.dhs.org) [62.119.125.127]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19Zr2F-0002J6-00; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:53:27 -0500
Received: from ola by chrystal.opal.dhs.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 19Zr2E-00019X-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:53:26 +0200
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:53:26 +0200
From: Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFA: libxalan-java
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
I would like someone to take over libxalan-java. I do not really
have the time it deserves.
I can be co-maintainer (e.g. in the uploaders field) but I do
not want full responsibility for the package.
Regards,
// Ola
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 200460-close) by bugs.debian.org; 13 May 2004 17:06:17 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 13 10:06:17 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from serv09.segi.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.78]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BOJez-0008Jk-00; Thu, 13 May 2004 10:06:17 -0700
Received: (qmail 10449 invoked by uid 504); 13 May 2004 19:05:45 +0200
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED] by serv09.segi.ulg.ac.be by uid 501 with
qmail-scanner-1.16
(clamscan: 0.60. spamassassin: 2.55. Clear:.
Processed in 0.738932 secs); 13 May 2004 17:05:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO oz.fapse.ulg.ac.be) ([139.165.201.14])
(envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
by serv09.segi.ulg.ac.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 13 May 2004 19:05:44 +0200
Received: from arnaud by oz.fapse.ulg.ac.be with local (Exim 4.33)
id 1BOJeO-00062c-BZ; Thu, 13 May 2004 19:05:40 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stefan Gybas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: libxalan-java
From: Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:05:37 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: Arnaud Vandyck <[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=-0.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,UPPERCASE_25_50
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
This package is provided by Xalan-J
Stefan, if you do not think I should close the bug, feel free to re-open
it
Cheers,
- --
Arnaud
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQFAo6rk4vzFZu62tMIRAmTSAJd48Guj3HNz1cicYfBO0hzozMKDAJ9HkuOV
DDGJSpSx5kG9uS+2UXdlgw==
=NjGF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
