On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 11:33 -0600, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Franklin PIAT wrote: >> > Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Frank Lin PIAT >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:33 -0600, Lukasz Szybalski wrote: >> >>>> Did you verify before you deleted the section form manualhowto? >> >>>> The manual-howto had instruction on how to manually install flash >> >>>> player to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ vs the "flash=player page does >> >>>> not. >> >>> >> >>> As I mentioned in the changelog, I removed that section because it >> >>> duplicate the content of the page FlashPlayer. >> >>> I decided not to merge the content because explaining how to manually >> >>> install something is just the wrong way to do things: I defeats the >> >>> purpose of having a distribution. >> >>> People willing to install or compile stuffs manually should use LFS, >> >>> Gentoo, Windows or whatever. >> >> >> >> I agree that installing things manually is a pain but in this case it >> >> seems as one of the options. >> >> First flash player was in sarge, but didn't work, Then sarge fixed it >> >> year later >> >> Second etch came in with flash player, it worked then got removed >> > >> >> Third, backports repository is questionable... >> >> so the only way to me seems like a manual install is one of the options. >> > >> > Installing anything manually is a bad practice. >> > - One have to reinstall it again and again, especially when new security >> > updates are published. >> > - A vulnerable version could remain installed for a while. >> > - The file isn't managed by apt/dpkg (conflict and dependencies) >> > - Why do manually waht can be done automacically >> > - And many other reasons that don't comes to my mind... >> > >> >> Above point doesn't matter now. I've merged the changes to Flash-player >> >> page. >> > >> > Document this procedure on your own website if you want, but not on the >> > wiki, where we only list recommended practices. >> > >> > At the risk of getting you upset, I'll remove that again. >> >> How about just add the warning you just mentioned... >> " >> >Installing anything manually is a bad practice. >> > - One have to reinstall it again and again, especially when new security >> > updates are published. >> > - A vulnerable version could remain installed for a while. >> > - The file isn't managed by apt/dpkg (conflict and dependencies) >> > - Why do manually what can be done automatically >> " > >> Because If you don't want to use backports then that is your only option. > > Why wouldn't you install backports? > >> My opinion on the plugins is that they are exception to a lot of >> things. > > Why? > >> They are not stable and if you don't have most recent flash >> plugin then your website don't work, and if you website don't work >> then debian doesn't work. > > The maintainer is quite responsive (flash v10 have been in experimental > for a while).
He might be responsive but the flash is not in stable. Backports is not an official debian repository so your way or my way fall in a category of "not official system overwrite". You need to make sure you know what you doing when using backports and you need to know what you doing when manually installing. You can pick one over another but until one of these becomes official debian repository I don't see how we can pick. Seems to me that we should let the user decide since its his system. Both of these are needed to have working flash so we can get all opinions for and against but the true of the fact is you need to do something outside of debian official distribution . The 2 packages that have manual install all over them (close but never the same problem as flashplayer) are vmware, nvidia. Its never easy with these nonfree packages is it... Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
