Comment 14 for bug 1544409

As regards having adobe-flashplugin and pepperflashplugin-nonfree conflict to each other, please see this email correspondence I had with Chris Coulson a while ago:

<quote>
On 23/09/16 11:34, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Writing you about adobe-flashplugin, since I noticed that you were
> the latest uploader.
>
> adobe-flashplugin conflicts flashplugin-installer, which is nice, but
> I think it would be good to let it conflict pepperflashplugin-nonfree
> also to make the installation more straight forward. For that to be
> possible, I suppose that <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1544409> needs
> to be fixed first.
>
> Do you think that would be steps in the right direction? If so, would
> it be helpful if I prepared some patches to get it done?

Not conflicting pepperflashplugin-nonfree is intentional. When we added the PPAPI plugin to adobe-flashplugin, an additional conflict would have prevented update-manager from updating the package for people who already had pepperflashplugin-nonfree installed.

Regards
- Chris
</quote>

Since it can't be done easily, I guess we have to live with this inconvenience. I've closed the adobe-flashplugin and pepperflashplugin-nonfree tasks.

As regards which package browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash recommends, it's about to be fixed via bug #1633678. Marking this bug as a duplicate.

As regards the future of pepperflashplugin-nonfree, we don't need it in Ubuntu any longer since we have adobe-flashplugin. While a fixed version of it will keep being needed for other Debian distros, a reasonable measure would probably be to drop it from the Ubuntu archive in 17.04. But that part of the discussion may better be held on bug #1632870.