*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 180478 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180478
I fixed that problem in an other manner:
I did aptitude download libflashsupport on a 32bit system and copied the
deb package to my 64bit system.
Then created a directory under /usr/local/src. In my case I c
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 180478 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180478
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 180478
pulseaudio support, broken nspluginwrapper/flash
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug noti
No, the libflashsupport binary package on amd64 contains a 64-bit
library. This is completely useless because there is no 64-bit
proprietary flash plugin. The source package must be changed to cause it
to build a 32-bit libflashsupport binary on amd64, which the 32-bit
flash plugin can use.
--
li
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 180478
pulseaudio support, broken nspluginwrapper/flash
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 180478 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180478
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 180478
pulseaudio support, broken nspluginwrapper/flash
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug noti
Does this mean that the patch is unnecessary, and all we need is libpcap in
lib32?
I went ahead and reinstalled the version in the repos, and still have sound in
flash (with the manually installed libpcap) so I think the answer is yes,
unless the patched version has been packaged recently.
--
running this command:
getlibs -p libflashsupport
made flash have sound on my hardy x86_64 system so adding a 32bit
libflashsupport definately seems the way to go (getlibs is a utility
that installs 32bit libraries for you, see
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=474790)
--
libflash
Thanks for testing the patch, that was quicker than I expected. :)
Jonathan said: "Joonas' patch works fine for me as long as I have the 32-bit
libcap.so.1.10 installed manually. "
I noticed that I had installed manually a 32-bit version of libcap earlier (I
built libflashsupport on gutsy using
Forget my patch, as I was ignorant of the gcc-multilib packages which
seem to only exist for gcc-4.x. I think it's quite confusing that on my
Hardy system, "gcc-3.4 -m32" works properly with no -multilib packages
installed, while "gcc-3.3 -m32", "gcc-4.1 -m32", and "gcc-4.2 -m32"
don't.
Now that I
I was able to follow Joonas's instructions, only adding CC=gcc-3.4 to
debian/rules to avoid the buggy default gcc-4.2. Of course, this is just
a workaround, when it's really gcc-4.2 that needs to be fixed.
** Attachment added: "My version of Joonas's patch"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/123449
Joonas, which version of gcc do you have installed? I have gcc version
4.2.3-1ubuntu3 and gcc-4.2 version 4.2.3-2ubuntu1 installed. However, my
gcc command does not seem to be able to build 32-bit binaries using the
-m32 option. When I follow your instructions, configure complains that
the compiler
Thank you very much for the package. It seems it's now quite a bit
easier to build libflashsupport on x86_64 than it was a couple of months
ago when I did it on my Hardy machine, since more libraries like
libpulse and libgnutls have been added to ia32-libs. However, I did have
to do a couple of ext
I managed to compile 32-bit libflashsupport with a simple hack.
Luckily ia32-libs package contains all the 32-bit libraries needed, so all I
had to do was recompile the package with -m32 and /usr/lib32 as library path.
Also, two symlinks are required in /usr/lib32.
Please note that this is complet
Yep, running Hardy here. No dice.
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ub
libflashsupport from the archive also does not work
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.c
can you please test with the libflashsupport from the archive ? (hardy only)
if it works someone could probably ask for a backport.
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the b
I cannot think of a single user persona (except for maybe Richard
Stallman) that would not install Flash at some point in time. So yeah, I
agree, it's pretty serious.
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug notification because you are a me
Or rather, not in the default install, but in an oft-installed
component.
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubunt
The fix in the link no longer works. Installing it causes flash to be
extremely unstable (it crashes after 5-10 seconds of video playback) and
does not fix the sound problem. I'm running the most recent version of
hardy.
I suggest an increase in severity, since this should is a problem in the
defa
** Changed in: libflashsupport (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-
Please see http://jean-christophe.dubacq.fr/index.php?post/2007/07/17
/adobe-on-amd64-without-chroot-acrobat-flash for a solution
--
libflashsupport useless on amd64
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180008
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug
21 matches
Mail list logo
