jockey-gtk crashed with ImportError in <module>()

[sebz]

Description: Ubuntu lucid (development branch)
Release: 10.04

ProblemType: Crash
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: jockey-gtk 0.5.8-0ubuntu6
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.32-19.28-generic 2.6.32.10+drm33.1
Uname: Linux 2.6.32-19-generic i686
Architecture: i386
Date: Thu Apr 8 00:34:40 2010
ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/jockey-gtk
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.04 "Lucid Lynx" - Alpha i386 (20100322)
InterpreterPath: /usr/bin/python2.6
Lsusb:
 Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub
 Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub
MachineType: Compaq Evo N1015v
PackageArchitecture: all
PccardctlIdent:
 Socket 0:
   no product info available
PccardctlStatus:
 Socket 0:
   3.3V 32-bit PC Card
ProcCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.32-19-generic root=UUID=076ea6ab-93f1-4192-992e-15faafc77516 ro quiet splash
ProcCmdline: /usr/bin/python /usr/bin/jockey-gtk --dbus-server
ProcEnviron:
 SHELL=/bin/bash
 LANG=fr_FR.utf8
PythonArgs: ['/usr/bin/jockey-gtk', '--dbus-server']
SourcePackage: jockey
Title: jockey-gtk crashed with ImportError in <module>()
UserGroups: adm admin cdrom dialout lpadmin plugdev sambashare
dmi.bios.date: 11/25/2003
dmi.bios.vendor: Phoenix
dmi.bios.version: 0F0B
dmi.board.name: 07D4h
dmi.board.vendor: Compaq
dmi.board.version: KBC Revision: 1326
dmi.chassis.type: 10
dmi.chassis.vendor: Compaq
dmi.chassis.version: N/A
dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnPhoenix:bvr0F0B:bd11/25/2003:svnCompaq:pnEvoN1015v:pvr0100:rvnCompaq:rn07D4h:rvrKBCRevision1326:cvnCompaq:ct10:cvrN/A:
dmi.product.name: Evo N1015v
dmi.product.version: 0100
dmi.sys.vendor: Compaq

[Apport retracing service (apport)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this crash and helping to make Ubuntu better. This particular crash has already been reported and is a duplicate of bug #335543, so is being marked as such. Please look at the other bug report to see if there is any missing information that you can provide, or to see if there is a workaround for the bug. Additionally, any further discussion regarding the bug should occur in the other report. Please continue to report any other bugs you may find.

[Bruce Miller (brm0423)]

I believe that the duplicate status is wrong.

I consider it buggy behaviour by Apport to mark issues such as this one as duplicates. In this case, and in other similar ones which I have noted in the past month, Apport has labelled new bugs as duplicates. Checking the so-called "original" bugs reveals that they come from the development stages of an earlier release and that their status is "fix released."

I see this as a surefire way to ensure that new bugs slide through the release process unnoticed.

Recent examples have involved the most basic configuration: for example, Internet connectivity and configuration of popular, albeit proprietary closed-source, drivers.

As an end-user, I am not in a position to judge how many users are affected by such bugs. It is possible that I am in a tiny minority.

Nonetheless the concern is that if a reviewer should run afoul of one of these bugs after Lucid is released, it will cause negative comment and stir up yet more anti-Ubuntu FUD.

To the best of my understanding, the most that an end-user like me can do is to change the status of the so-called "original bugs" from "Fix Released" to "New" and to add the tag "regression-potential." If there is a better approach, I would appreciate advice.

I believe that a bug also needs to be submitted against the Apport retracing service and would appreciate advice on how to do so.