Processed: Re: Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> severity -1 serious
Bug #978954 [pepperflashplugin-nonfree] pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not 
be part of bookworm
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'

-- 
978954: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=978954
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> severity -1 important
Bug #978954 [pepperflashplugin-nonfree] pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not 
be part of next stable Debian release
Severity set to 'important' from 'grave'
> retitle -1 pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of bookworm
Bug #978954 [pepperflashplugin-nonfree] pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not 
be part of next stable Debian release
Changed Bug title to 'pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of 
bookworm' from 'pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable 
Debian release'.

-- 
978954: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=978954
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Andreas Beckmann]

Control: severity -1 important
Control: retitle -1 pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of bookworm

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:14:49 +0100 Gunnar Hjalmarsson  
wrote:
> But let me add that even if Opera fixes that, users may think they want 
> to enable flash, try to install pepperflashplugin-nonfree, and with that 
> screw up dpkg. So the issue happens before they try to enable it in a 
> browser. I.e. as long as the package in its current state is present in 
> the archive.

I've just uploaded 1.8.8 turning the package into a dummy removing
the broken download/install functionality and the chromium integration
s.t. people will upgrade to a "fixed" version (that does not block trying
to download unavailable bits). That should be cleaner than removing it
from the archive while leaving it installed in broken state on users
systems.


Andreas

Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

But let me add that even if Opera fixes that, users may think they want 
to enable flash, try to install pepperflashplugin-nonfree, and with that 
screw up dpkg. So the issue happens before they try to enable it in a 
browser. I.e. as long as the package in its current state is present in 
the archive.


/ Gunnar

Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

Hi Paul!

On 2021-01-12 14:52, Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) wrote:

Do you know why Opera's debian package doesn't drop the dependency
of pepperflashplugin-nonfree??


No. I suspect it's simply an oversight (which creates issues at the moment).

Cheers,

/ Gunnar

Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)]

Hey Gunnar,

Do you know why Opera's debian package doesn't drop the dependency of
pepperflashplugin-nonfree??

I didn't find Opera's official announcement about their roadmap of
Flash's EOL.

But other browsers are already starting blocking flash. Even with the
plugin installed they still refuse to load flash content.

Yours,
Paul

Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

Another reminder about why it's important to handle this also in the 
supported releases:


https://askubuntu.com/q/1306202

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

Right, it should certainly not be included in its current state in next 
release.


But there is more into it. If you for instance try to install Opera from 
stable (or oldstable or testing or unstable...) the .deb recommends 
pepperflashplugin-nonfree, and you may end up to a situation like this:


https://askubuntu.com/q/1305914

So instead of dropping the package, I think the best thing to do is to 
convert it to a dummy transitional package in all supported releases as 
well as testing and unstable.


flashplugin-nonfree was handled by just dropping it:

https://bugs.debian.org/969112

But that has already happened, and so be it.

More talk about this topic at .

--
Cheers,

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

Bug#978954: pepperflashplugin-nonfree: should not be part of next stable Debian release

[Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)]

Package: pepperflashplugin-nonfree
Version: 1.8.7
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

Dear Maintainer,

flash has been EOL today. Browsers are starting to block flash.
I think we should block this package goes into next release?

Yours,
Paul

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.9.0-5-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=zh_TW.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=zh_TW.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), 
LANGUAGE=zh_TW:en_US
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages pepperflashplugin-nonfree depends on:
ii  binutils 2.35.1-6
ii  ca-certificates  20200601
ii  libgcc-s110.2.1-3
ii  libstdc++6   10.2.1-3
ii  wget 1.20.3-1+b3

pepperflashplugin-nonfree recommends no packages.

Versions of packages pepperflashplugin-nonfree suggests:
ii  chromium   83.0.4103.116-3.1+b2
pn  ttf-dejavu 
pn  ttf-mscorefonts-installer  
pn  ttf-xfree86-nonfree

-- no debconf information


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature