Comment 5 for bug 41834

I did the marking, so I will provide my reasoning. Basically I considered the issue like this:
- These two reports apparently address the same issue.
- However, the title of the older report was not quite as descriptive as to the cause of the problem.
- It is apparently possible to edit another person's bug report (even its title) to be more descriptive, but I did not feel comfortable touching someone else's report.
- Further, I do not believe that a bug report's age is a definite criterion for which of them should be marked as a duplicate. The previous bug report hadn't received attention in a long time, so I felt that the issue is more likely to receive positive attention if tracked under this newer report (with the more descriptive title).

- A further note: As I noted in my edit to the original bug report (the edit appears as the current text), I found out that this is (apparently) fixed in Dapper, but the fix has not been published for Breezy.
- It is unclear to me, what the Ubuntu policy regarding these kinds of fixes (backports) is, so if a developer considers this report (for Breezy), I do appreciate if someone is able to clarify the policy.