On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 07:02:47PM -0700, Zephiris wrote:
> Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> >
> > I too am confused, if you have flash 9 working in firefox on RELENG_7
> > please give us a detailed how to there are just a TON of people
> > looking for this. I have 5 systems I would test it out on right n
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:51:44PM +0200, I wrote:
> > There was a report on -current a while ago that a preliminary patch
> > to fix the non-threadsafeness of mmap(2) MAP_FIXED also makes flash9 work,
> >
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-August/075968.html
> > a fi
On 10/18/07, Roman Divacky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There was a report on -current a while ago that a preliminary patch
> > > to fix the non-threadsafeness of mmap(2) MAP_FIXED also makes flash9 work,
> > >
> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-August/075968.htm
> > There was a report on -current a while ago that a preliminary patch
> > to fix the non-threadsafeness of mmap(2) MAP_FIXED also makes flash9 work,
> >
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-August/075968.html
I wrote that and I was wrong... it doesnt seem to fix the f
[adding -emulation to Cc, just in case...]
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 09:40:55PM +0200, I wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >Quoting John Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:10:11 -0700):
> >
> >>
> >> [ On Monday, October 8, Scot Hetzel wrote: ]
> >> > The port is no
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Quoting John Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:10:11 -0700):
>
>>
>> [ On Monday, October 8, Scot Hetzel wrote: ]
>> > The port is not broken as the flash9 port is not compiled, it just
>> > installs the linux flash9 binary. What is broken
Rather easy nspluginwrapper + Flash9 plugin in Firefox on Current and 6.2
stable. It's to some *extent* usable, but will segfault (only nspluginwrapper)
while playing videos.
Cheers, Oliver
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:15:31PM +0200, Willy Picard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:46:30PM +0100, R
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:46:30PM +0100, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:52:18 -0500
> "Scot Hetzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 10/8/07, Willy Picard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The thing that shocked me is the fact that the port is still in the ports
> > > tree even if it does
Quoting John Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:10:11 -0700):
>
> [ On Monday, October 8, Scot Hetzel wrote: ]
> > The port is not broken as the flash9 port is not compiled, it just
> > installs the linux flash9 binary. What is broken is the linux
> > emulation on FreeBSD < 7. Work
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:52:18 -0500
"Scot Hetzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/8/07, Willy Picard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The thing that shocked me is the fact that the port is still in the
> > ports tree
> > even if it does not work! (It compiles but each try to view a Flash
> > anima
[ On Monday, October 8, Scot Hetzel wrote: ]
> The port is not broken as the flash9 port is not compiled, it just
> installs the linux flash9 binary. What is broken is the linux
> emulation on FreeBSD < 7. Work is underway to improve the linux
> emulation in -CURRENT.
>
> I agree the port should
On 10/8/07, Willy Picard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I write this email to give my humble opinion on the scandalous status of the
> linux-flashplugin9. This port is in the port tree for now 8 monthes (first
> commit on the 17th of January 2007) and one should admit that it never
> worked.
Hi,
I write this email to give my humble opinion on the scandalous status of the
linux-flashplugin9. This port is in the port tree for now 8 monthes (first
commit on the 17th of January 2007) and one should admit that it never worked. A
numerous set of mails has already been sent on this mailing l
13 matches
Mail list logo
