Comment 15 for bug 1544409

> As regards having adobe-flashplugin and pepperflashplugin-nonfree
> conflict to each other [...] 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.

I understand why the Conflicts can't be added. I can think of one last way of fixing this inconvenience in published releases: make pepperflashplugin-nonfree a metapackage Depending on adobe-flashplugin (assuming this is possible since the later is in Canonical Partner). This would transparently substitute the former with the later.

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

Agreed. Looking forward to your work making its way into the published releases, and we can close this bug.

> As regards the future of pepperflashplugin-nonfree, we don't need it in Ubuntu any longer since we have adobe-flashplugin.

Unless Canonical Partner can't be enabled for new desktop installations, isn't it?

> a reasonable measure would probably be to drop it from the Ubuntu archive in 17.04

I would love to see that happening. How does one go about stopping a package from being imported from Debian?