On 11/22/2010 11:52 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/19/2010 09:41 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> Dne 19.11.2010 15:40, Przemek Klosowski napsal(a):
>>> - freeze glibc to avoid this bug ever (OK, maybe this one isn't serious)
>>> - fix glibc or the flash wrapper to accommodate the buggy clients
>>> - bug
On 11/18/2010 05:17 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Magnus Glantz [18/11/2010 17:07] :
>> I meant patching in general, doesn't have to be glibc. Just temporarily
>> solving the issue, in general by patching something :-)
> I'm unclear as why you feel the 'somethin
On 11/18/2010 04:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Magnus Glantz wrote:
>> So..
>> Upside of patching: happy users :-)
>> Downside of patching: unhappy developers :-(
> and unhappy users because their software runs slower, apparently
On 11/18/2010 03:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:14:58AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 11/17/2010 11:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> How is any of that a reason not to patch glibc?
>>
>> Upside of patching: happy users.
>> Downside: nothing.
> Downside: slower memcpy on ss
On 11/18/2010 12:04 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Magnus Glantz wrote:
>> 2)
>> QUOTE
>> "And in the end, the big question is simple:
>> Are you seriously going to do a Fedora-14 release with a known
>> non-working flash player?"
>> END QUOTE
>&
On 11/18/2010 05:23 AM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
> Well, I am glad that Adobe is committing to fixing the problem, but it is not
> something I would rely on happening in all cases.
I agree completely.
On 11/18/2010 05:23 AM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
> The majority of Fedora users also need support f
On 11/17/2010 10:18 PM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
>> 2) Create a work-around for the end-users (as has been done by several
>> people in the BZ #638477-thread)
> This pretty much erases whatever incentive Adobe might have to actually fix
> the bug. Instead of fixing their code, now what they can do
On 11/17/2010 10:02 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 08:58 PM, Magnus Glantz wrote:
>> But.. if we notice that it's broken, we can:
>> 1) Notify Adobe about it, so they -can- provide a fix. If they do not
>> know, they can't fix it.. The
On 11/17/2010 09:46 PM, François Cami wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Magnus Glantz wrote:
>> On 11/17/2010 09:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Wolff IIIwrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:57:20 +0100,
>>>
On 11/17/2010 09:30 PM, Ugis Fedora wrote:
> From: jonat...@jonmasters.org
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:16:20 -0500
> Subject: Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility
> CC: fedora-devel-l...@redhat.com
>
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 08:57 +0100, Hans de Go
On 11/17/2010 09:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:57:20 +0100,
>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> For those who do not know it yet, recent Fedora glibc updates include
>>> an optimized memcpy (which gets us
Hi guys,
I just got an e-mail from Adobe that:
1) They have a fix
2) The fix has been send to QA/QE
They say that they cannot commit to any dates, but that they are taking
the issue seriously.
I told them that if they want volunteers trying out their fix, we can help.
Cheers,
Magnus Glantz
gt;>> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/501
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Hans
>>> Is someone talking to Adobe about this?
>> Yes, see https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FP-5739
> Adobe benefits from Flash in Linux. So it s
13 matches
Mail list logo
