Comment 3 for bug 558758

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.