canonical-partner-dev team mailing list archive

[Launchpad Bug Tracker <1544409@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You have been subscribed to a public bug by Nathanaël Naeri (nathanael-naeri):

The browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash package (Wily, Xenial)
recommends pepperflashplugin-nonfree, which downloads the PPAPI Flash
plugin from Google.

This is not the only way to install this plugin in Ubuntu: the adobe-
flashplugin package, in Canonical's partner repository, installs it too
(PPAPI and NPAPI).

Shouldn't Ubuntu's version of browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash
recommend pepperflashplugin-nonfree | adobe-flashplugin instead, then?
Or only suggest pepperflashplugin-nonfree, as Alin Andrei's
freshplayerplugin package does (WebUpd8 PPA)?

Recommending pepperflashplugin-nonfree only means that a user with
adobe-flashplugin will get an additional PPAPI Flash plugin when
pepperflashplugin-nonfree installs as a recommended dependency of
browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash. I don't know if it is that much
of a problem, but I tend to be wary of this plugin, let alone two of
them.

I believe this is a packaging issue limited to Ubuntu since Canonical's
partner repository is not intended for Debian. AFAIK Debian has a unique
provider of PPAPI Flash in their repositories: pepperflashplugin-
nonfree.

However one could perhaps argue that the Debian package should also
suggest pepperflashplugin-nonfree instead of recommending it, since it
may be possible to install PPAPI Flash by other means on Debian too (I
guess)?

** Affects: freshplayerplugin (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

-- 
Flash plugin is installed as a dependency of browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash (freshplayerplugin) even if it is already installed by another package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1544409
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Canonical Partner Developers, which is subscribed to the bug report.