Can't be installed due to unmet dependencies (python-gnomeapplet)

[Christian Rössel]

Trying to install timer-applet using the Ubuntu Software Center yielded following output:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:

timer-applet: Depends: python (>= 2.5) but 2.7.3-0ubuntu2 is to be installed
              Depends: gconf2 (>= 2.10.1-2) but 3.2.5-0ubuntu2 is to be installed
              Depends: python-gtk2 (>= 2.10) but 2.24.0-3 is to be installed
              Depends: python-gnomeapplet but it is not going to be installed
              Depends: python-glade2 (>= 2.10) but 2.24.0-3 is to be installed

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: timer-applet (not installed)
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-31.50-generic 3.2.28
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-31-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.0.1-0ubuntu13
Architecture: amd64
Date: Mon Oct 15 13:41:19 2012
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.10 "Oneiric Ocelot" - Release amd64 (20111012)
ProcEnviron:
 TERM=xterm
 PATH=(custom, user)
 LANG=en_US.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: timer-applet
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to precise on 2012-05-04 (164 days ago)

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

[Reuben Thomas (rrt)]

Ahem! It's slightly annoying to be told that a bug that one reported is a duplicate when in fact (as you can see from the bug numbers) this bug was reported first!

[Hans Joachim Desserud (hjd)]

Hi Reuben, I can understand that seemed a bit annoying. As you say, the general rule is to mark newer bugs as duplicates of the oldest one. In this case though, I noticed this bug report contained the detailed error message listing the unmet dependencies. While I could probably have copied this information over and added it to the other bug report, I chose to mark it a duplicate this time.

If this makes more sense, the duplication can still be reversed. :)

[Reuben Thomas (rrt)]

Not to worry, I understand there may be a good reason. It's mostly the tone of the automated message that grates; maybe it could be rewritten so that it doesn't imply the duplicate bug's reporter is somehow wrong? That would be nice even for people who do report later dupes!