On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:03:47 -0700
Konstantin Svist wrote:
> I keep hitting this issue, too..
> The problem happens when you dnf update flash-plugin while firefox is
> running. Firefox writes its cache of plugin info, pluginreg.dat, on
> quit -- but it uses the in-memory info to do
ows me it's Firefox and its' API
...
I found following URL and did what it describe:
https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-install-adobe-flash-player-on-fedora-linux-with-firefox
Then I get always the latest update of "flash-plugin" with no problem :-)
--
Regards
Jon Ingason
___
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:03:47AM -0700, Konstantin Svist wrote:
>I keep hitting this issue, too..
>The problem happens when you dnf update flash-plugin while firefox is
>running. Firefox writes its cache of plugin info, pluginreg.dat, on
>quit -- but it uses the in-me
I keep hitting this issue, too..
The problem happens when you dnf update flash-plugin while firefox is
running. Firefox writes its cache of plugin info, pluginreg.dat, on quit
-- but it uses the in-memory info to do that. In the case above, the old
version number is written to the cache file.
To
;>
>> dnf list installed | grep -e firefox -e flash-plugin
>> firefox.x86_64 52.0-6.fc25 @updates
>> flash-plugin.x86_64 25.0.0.127-release@adobe-linux-x86_64
>>
>
> If you updated and not restarted Firefox, it will complain. You hav
On 03/28/2017 09:07 AM, Terry Polzin wrote:
Firefox is complaining about flash not being up to date. I believe i
have the latest of both.
dnf list installed | grep -e firefox -e flash-plugin
firefox.x86_64 52.0-6.fc25 @updates
flash-plugin.x86_64 25.0.0.127-release
Is FireFox complaining, or are you getting that error when you
navigate to a website?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Terry Polzin wrote:
> Firefox is complaining about flash not being up to date. I believe i have
> the latest of both.
>
> dnf list installed | grep -e firefox -e
Firefox is complaining about flash not being up to date. I believe i have
the latest of both.
dnf list installed | grep -e firefox -e flash-plugin
firefox.x86_64 52.0-6.fc25
@updates
flash-plugin.x86_64 25.0.0.127-release
@adobe-linux-x86_64
On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 14:44 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Did you update using yum/dnf while Firefox was running? If so, you're
> probably hitting this:
>
> http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/174210/2511
>
> Short version:
>
> 1. exit firefox
> 2. rm ~/.mozilla/firefox/*/pluginreg.dat
> 3.
r,
> >
> > $ rpm -qa flash-plugin
> > flash-plugin-11.2.202.577-release.x86_64
>
> Did you update using yum/dnf while Firefox was running? If so, you're
> probably hitting this:
>
> http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/174210/2511
>
> Short version:
>
&g
> > > flash version is out of date. When I look for an update from
> > > Adobe (i.e. back ported security fixes), there isn't one. I'm
> > > already running the latest release for Linux.
> > >
> > > Did Adobe drop the security updates to flash
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:39:18PM -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> Actually, I see this warning all the time also, especially when
> youtube video is embedded. The video does play on youtube.com
> however,
>
> $ rpm -qa flash-plugin
> flash-plugin-11.2.202.577-release.x86_64
Di
gt; ported security fixes), there isn't one. I'm already running the latest
> > release for Linux.
> >
> > Did Adobe drop the security updates to flash sooner than they promised?
>
> Did you update your flash-plugin? I'm not seeing such warning messages
> wi
; release for Linux.
>
> Did Adobe drop the security updates to flash sooner than they promised?
Did you update your flash-plugin? I'm not seeing such warning messages
with my flash-plugin-11.2.202.577 from the adobe-linux repo.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscri
Hi Everyone,
Everywhere I go that uses useless flash, I get an error saying my flash
version is out of date. When I look for an update from Adobe (i.e. back
ported security fixes), there isn't one. I'm already running the latest
release for Linux.
Did Adobe drop the security updates to flash soon
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:14:55 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> Currently, my desktop is still on F 21, although I'm planning on
> upgrading to 22 next month. Just today, I checked for updates and found
> one for the adobe flash plugin. Odd, but adobe doesn't seem to care
> wh
abandoning flash in favour of HTML 5's
video capabilities, but I'm not sure how far down the track they have
advanced.
Currently, my desktop is still on F 21, although I'm planning on
upgrading to 22 next month. Just today, I checked for updates and found
one for the adobe flash pl
On 23/12/15 18:18, Antonio M wrote:
11.2.202.554 version is installed but some pages say that on this page
http://video.repubblica.it/sport/sci-cdm-drone-si-abbatte-in-pista-hirscher-sfiorato-durante-la-gara/223066/222316?ref=HRESS-1
I have a no more supported version!!!
is anybody experiencin
On 12/23/2015 03:18 PM, Antonio M wrote:
11.2.202.554 version is installed but some pages say that on this page
http://video.repubblica.it/sport/sci-cdm-drone-si-abbatte-in-pista-hirscher-sfiorato-durante-la-gara/223066/222316?ref=HRESS-1
I have a no more supported version!!!
is anybody experi
road.
The best solution if Flash Player is a necessity to you is to install
Google Chrome or Chromium with the Pepper Flash plugin.
IMO, the best solution is to contact this site's admin and tell them
their site is broken and that they should take it off-line.
Ralf
--
users mailing
s a necessity to you is to install
Google Chrome or Chromium with the Pepper Flash plugin.
Brandon Vincent
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: h
11.2.202.554 version is installed but some pages say that on this page
http://video.repubblica.it/sport/sci-cdm-drone-si-abbatte-in-pista-hirscher-sfiorato-durante-la-gara/223066/222316?ref=HRESS-1
I have a no more supported version!!!
is anybody experiencing this issue?? Tnx
--
Antonio Montagna
On 07/07/15 10:53, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 7 July 2015 at 16:42, Kevin Cummings wrote:
>> I have a strange happening.
>>
>> On my F19.x86_64 home server, I have both firefox-34.0-1.fc19.x86_64 and
>> the latest Adobe flash-plugin-11.2.202.468-release.x86_64 installed.
On 7 July 2015 at 16:42, Kevin Cummings wrote:
> I have a strange happening.
>
> On my F19.x86_64 home server, I have both firefox-34.0-1.fc19.x86_64 and
> the latest Adobe flash-plugin-11.2.202.468-release.x86_64 installed.
> About:plugins shows that it is the correct plugin, a
I have a strange happening.
On my F19.x86_64 home server, I have both firefox-34.0-1.fc19.x86_64 and
the latest Adobe flash-plugin-11.2.202.468-release.x86_64 installed.
About:plugins shows that it is the correct plugin, and all seems to work
as expected.
On my F20.x86_64 laptop, again, I have
FYI:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Martin Stransky
Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 AM
Subject: Flash plugin 0-day vulnerability in the wild
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Folk,
There's a live 0-day flash vulnerability which is not fixed yet
[1][2]. If yo
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:40:06 -0500 Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > But to no avail. One issue is that I can not reinstall/erase because of
> > these scriptlet errors which I have been getting for a week.
> >
> > Any suggesti
Hi
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>
>
> But to no avail. One issue is that I can not reinstall/erase because of
> these scriptlet errors which I have been getting for a week.
>
> Any suggestions as to a possible fix?
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2
On 01/21/2014 01:06 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
Hi,
I have four machines (3 x86_64's and 1 i386). I installed flash on all
4 using the following:
http://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-adobe-flash-player-10-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/
For 3 machines, I have had no problems. For 1
Hi,
I have four machines (3 x86_64's and 1 i386). I installed flash on all
4 using the following:
http://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-adobe-flash-player-10-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/
For 3 machines, I have had no problems. For 1 x86_64 machine, I
installed flash today but am u
On 06/20/2013 06:06 AM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 06/17/2013 01:30 PM, poma wrote:
On 06.06.2013 14:46, Gary Stainburn wrote:
Hi folks.
I've followed the instructions to install the flash plugin by
downloading the
YUM version and then installing the RPM. I got no errors when doing
a
On Thursday 20 June 2013 11:51:18 Stephen Morris wrote:
> Hi Gary,
> Does your version of firefox see the totem plugins?
> Even though you have the Fedora 64 bit version of Firefox installed
> if they haven't changed the upstream defaults then it is presumably
> still looking for its plug
ve had the same problem, which I have
subsequently solved.
The issue I found was the Fedora installs the flash plugin in
/usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins but firefox (irrespective of whether its the
32 bit or 64 bit version) looks for its plugins in
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. I resolved the issue by i
I have
> subsequently solved.
> The issue I found was the Fedora installs the flash plugin in
> /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins but firefox (irrespective of whether its the
> 32 bit or 64 bit version) looks for its plugins in
> /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. I resolved the issue by ins
On 06/17/2013 01:30 PM, poma wrote:
On 06.06.2013 14:46, Gary Stainburn wrote:
Hi folks.
I've followed the instructions to install the flash plugin by downloading the
YUM version and then installing the RPM. I got no errors when doing any of
this. However, flash still does not work in Fi
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Does "nspluginwrapper.i686" still work with the Flash plugin on x86_64?
>
>
I have had problems recently with 32 bit Flash locking up my 64 bit Firefox
21 when Firefox 20 worked fine on the same system. Making the swi
On 06.06.2013 14:46, Gary Stainburn wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> I've followed the instructions to install the flash plugin by downloading the
> YUM version and then installing the RPM. I got no errors when doing any of
> this. However, flash still does not work in Firefox. If
tem or you used an old download from a different system.
>
> To fix this, remove the "adobe-release-i386" and "flash-plugin"
> packages with yum: `yum remove adobe-release-i386 flash-plugin`.
> Then visit the Adobe website at http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer on
>
Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 06 June 2013, Gary Stainburn sent:
>> [gary@gary ~]$ rpm -qa|grep firefox
>> firefox-21.0-3.fc17.x86_64
>
> x86_64 means 64-bit
>
>> [gary@gary ~]$ rpm -qa|grep flash
>> flash-plugin-11.2.202.285-release.i386
>
Allegedly, on or about 07 June 2013, Michael Schwendt sent:
> Does "nspluginwrapper.i686" still work with the Flash plugin on
> x86_64?
>
> $ yum search wrapper firefox|grep 86
> nspluginwrapper.i686 : A compatibility layer for Netscape 4 plugins
Mine has it
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 18:26:32 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Gary Stainburn
> wrote:
> > Hi folks.
> >
> > I've followed the instructions to install the flash plugin by downloading
> > the
> > YUM version and then insta
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Gary Stainburn
wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> I've followed the instructions to install the flash plugin by downloading the
> YUM version and then installing the RPM. I got no errors when doing any of
> this. However, flash still does not work
Allegedly, on or about 06 June 2013, Gary Stainburn sent:
> [gary@gary ~]$ rpm -qa|grep firefox
> firefox-21.0-3.fc17.x86_64
x86_64 means 64-bit
> [gary@gary ~]$ rpm -qa|grep flash
> flash-plugin-11.2.202.285-release.i386
i386 means 32-bit
Probably isn't compatible wit
Am 06.06.2013 14:46, schrieb Gary Stainburn:
> I've followed the instructions to install the flash plugin by downloading the
> YUM version and then installing the RPM. I got no errors when doing any of
> this. However, flash still does not work in Firefox. If I do 'about:p
gt;
> Rejy, I did as you suggested below and I can now watch videos on youtube. I
> haven't yet tried anything else such as the webcam.
>
> Thanks for you help
>
> Gary
>
> On Thursday 06 June 2013 13:57:25 Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
> > Try out the open source versio
x27;t yet tried anything else such as the webcam.
Thanks for you help
Gary
On Thursday 06 June 2013 13:57:25 Rejy M Cyriac wrote:
> Try out the open source version - gnash-plugin :-)
>
> yum remove flash-plugin
>
>
>
> yum install gnash-plugin
>
> --
> Regards,
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:46:17 +0100
Gary Stainburn wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
selinux?
su -c "cat /var/log/audit/audit.log | grep mozilla"
--
Regards,
Frank - I check for new mail app. 20min
www.frankly3d.com
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscriptio
On 06/06/2013 06:16 PM, Gary Stainburn wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> I've followed the instructions to install the flash plugin by downloading the
> YUM version and then installing the RPM. I got no errors when doing any of
> this. However, flash still does not work in Firefox. If
Hi folks.
I've followed the instructions to install the flash plugin by downloading the
YUM version and then installing the RPM. I got no errors when doing any of
this. However, flash still does not work in Firefox. If I do 'about:plugins'
it isn't listed.
Any suggestions
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 02.09.2012, Jim wrote:
>
> > I used fedorautils to install flash-plugin, and repaired it one time by
> > deleting flash-plug and reinstalling it with fedorautils, but the second
> > time around that did not work .
On 02.09.2012, Jim wrote:
> I used fedorautils to install flash-plugin, and repaired it one time by
> deleting flash-plug and reinstalling it with fedorautils, but the second
> time around that did not work .
Download the .tar.gz version of the plugin here:
http://get.adobe.com/fl
F17 / KDE
I have updated a couple of time and I loose the Flashplayer function to
play Flash videos.
I used fedorautils to install flash-plugin, and repaired it one time by
deleting flash-plug and reinstalling it with fedorautils, but the second
time around that did not work .
any Ideals
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Eddie G.O'Connor Jr-I wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2012 08:47 PM, Tim wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:28 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know the details but if this makes all Flash sites start
>>> working reliably on Linux, I would be willing to put up with w
On 06/22/2012 08:47 PM, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:28 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
I don't know the details but if this makes all Flash sites start
working reliably on Linux, I would be willing to put up with work
arounds like using VMs for a year or two.
If by "VM" you mean Windows softw
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:28 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> I don't know the details but if this makes all Flash sites start
> working reliably on Linux, I would be willing to put up with work
> arounds like using VMs for a year or two.
If by "VM" you mean Windows software working in a virtual machine,
Frank Murphy gmail.com> writes:
> On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
> > plugin was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago.
>
>
> This may be the answer:
> https://get.adobe
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
wrote:
> Certain functionality is needed
> now and not in next 10 years, to make Linux (Fedora) the real player in
> OS market.
I believe the reason for dropping support for Flash on linux is Adobe
expects all modern browsers (except Google Ch
On 22.06.2012 10:30, Eddie G.O'Connor Jr-I wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 04:05 AM, Darlene Wallach wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
>>>> Sorry for the off-topic post, but I&#
On 06/22/2012 04:05 AM, Darlene Wallach wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
plugin
was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago.
This may b
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
>> plugin
>> was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago.
>
>
>
> Thi
On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash plugin
was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago.
This may be the answer:
https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
"NOTE: Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version
On 05/10/2012 07:11 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> Only on i686. x86_64 users still need to grab the plugin from Adobe.
It's actually back in the "unstable" 64-bit version,
google-chrome-unstable-20.0.1130.1-135886.x86_64.
--
On 05/11/2012 08:11 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 05/10/2012 11:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
>>> You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
>> It is built in to chrome and currently at
>> FlashPlayer_11_2_202_235_FlashPlayer in
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 11:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
>> You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
>
> It is built in to chrome and currently at
> FlashPlayer_11_2_202_235_FlashPlayer in
> Chrome 18.0.1025.168
Only on i686. x86_64 users st
On 05/10/2012 08:57 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash plugin
was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. This is a security update. But
their yum repos (both i386 and x86_64) still have 11.2.202.233. I filed
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 12:41 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Andre Robatino
> wrote:
> > Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
> > plugin
> > was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. T
On 05/10/2012 09:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
Mi guess is that Chrome features Flash as an internal component and it
uses Chrome's internal auto-update mechanism?
FC
So you're sayin
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
> You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
Mi guess is that Chrome features Flash as an internal component and it
uses Chrome's internal auto-update mechanism?
FC
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscri
On 05/10/2012 11:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
> You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
It is built in to chrome and currently at FlashPlayer_11_2_202_235_FlashPlayer
in
Chrome 18.0.1025.168
--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on
the joke
o
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 12:41 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Andre Robatino
> wrote:
> > Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
> > plugin
> > was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. T
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Andre Robatino
wrote:
> Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
> plugin
> was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. This is a security update. But
> their yum repos (both i386 and x86_64) still have 11.2
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash plugin
was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. This is a security update. But
their yum repos (both i386 and x86_64) still have 11.2.202.233. I filed
https://bugbase.adobe.com/index.cfm?event=bug&id=3185733
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/11/2011 11:11 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> chcon -t textrel_shlib_t /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
thank you,
that fixed it!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iEYEAREKAAYFAk6VvjQACgkQrq+riTAIEg2ERQCfRBY9Q4DM2BauE2M/37pxX
On 10/11/2011 02:04 PM, Christoph A. wrote:
> I tried restorecon but it didn't fix the problem.
Did the troubleshooter suggest that, or did you try it on your own? In
the latter case, try running sealert from a terminal to bring up the
troubleshooter and try what it suggests.
--
users mailing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/11/2011 05:04 PM, Christoph A. wrote:
> Hi, since a recent flash-plugin it is no longer working within a
> sandbox.
>
>
> rpm -qa flash-plugin flash-plugin-11.0.1.152-release.i386
>
> rpm -qa *selinux* selinux-policy-t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
since a recent flash-plugin it is no longer working within a sandbox.
rpm -qa flash-plugin
flash-plugin-11.0.1.152-release.i386
rpm -qa *selinux*
selinux-policy-targeted-3.9.7-44.fc14.noarch
libselinux-utils-2.0.96-6.fc14.1.x86_64
libselinux
On 10/09/2011 09:01 PM, Steve Blackwell wrote:
> I'm still using F12 but and of course that are no more Fedora updates
> but the Adobe repo still does updates. So I updated:
>
> From my /var/log/yum.log
> Oct 04 19:17:50 Updated: flash-plugin-11.0.1.152-release.i386
>
>
Steve Blackwell writes:
If so how should this be reported to Adobe. I didn't see a way to do
this on their site.
bugs.adobe.com
Try your luck there.
pgpwqYCmJnMDE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription opti
I'm still using F12 but and of course that are no more Fedora updates
but the Adobe repo still does updates. So I updated:
From my /var/log/yum.log
Oct 04 19:17:50 Updated: flash-plugin-11.0.1.152-release.i386
and then flash no longer worked. I found that I get these SELinux
security a
Tom Horsley wrote:
> For me, I can't get all flash pages
> to work unless I completely remove nspluginwrapper
Never had that one! For me, nspluginwrapper has been a saviour. I used to not
be able to open more than one youtube video tab at a time, without having
firefox lock up and then all of
On another related note: For me, I can't get all flash pages
to work unless I completely remove nspluginwrapper:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712545
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/ma
Andre Robatino wrote:
> I removed the cd instructions from the wiki after reading
> it and deciding they weren't necessary.
Suit yourself. It is a wiki, and as I understand it, it can be edited by any
contributor. If you are privy to information that supercedes the current
information, then you
Petrus de Calguarium writes:
>
> Andre Robatino wrote:
>
> > If the command IS actually necessary, it would also be good
> > to determine if it's necessary to do the cd command first, and remove it
> > if not, for the same reason.
>
> That is for experts to ascertain.
Anyone who actually _nee
Andre Robatino wrote:
> If the command IS actually necessary, it would also be good
> to determine if it's necessary to do the cd command first, and remove it
> if not, for the same reason.
That is for experts to ascertain.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or c
gt; > After running the command, verify by going to the directory
> > /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins-wrapped and you will see a new entry
> >
> > nswrapper_64_64.libflashplayer.so
>
> What does running this command manually do that restarting the browser
> doesn
ry
>
> nswrapper_64_64.libflashplayer.so
What does running this command manually do that restarting the browser
doesn't? I've never had to run mozilla-plugin-config manually. I install
flash-plugin from the repo (either Adobe's 32-bit or Leigh's 64-bit) with the
necessar
Tom Horsley wrote:
> That's what the "site:" syntax in google searches if good for :-).
Thanks for the tip! I will definitely be using it.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Gu
On 10 June 2011 17:42, Tom Horsley wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:22:06 -0600
> Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
>
> > I have found it to be largely useless, since it does not have an index
>
> That's what the "site:" syntax in google searches if good for :-).
> I just wish the wiki had a "search th
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:22:06 -0600
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> I have found it to be largely useless, since it does not have an index
That's what the "site:" syntax in google searches if good for :-).
I just wish the wiki had a "search this site in google" widget
built in to every page automati
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Should I just put in a fake number to see if it will work?
The fake telephone number worked. I am now a contributor, but I don't know what
I can contribute. I will see if I can add the nspluginwrapper stuff I had
mentioned earlier in this thread to the wiki.
I hav
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Feel free to pitch in and add more details.
I now have an account, but I am unable to complete the contributor agreement,
because the program refuses to accept my agreement without a telephone number.
Should I just put in a fake number to see if it will work?
--
users
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Wiki can be edited by anyone with a Fedora account. If you don't have
> one, you can get it within minutes
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts
>
> Feel free to pitch in and add more details.
Sure, I can get one. But I should also add that I am not an expert and
er trouble I've ever had
> is
> the occasional need to delete ~/.mozilla/firefox/*/pluginreg.dat and let the
> browser recreate it if it doesn't list the correct version of the Flash
> plugin.
Should also add that I've always had SELinux set to enforcing, and have never
On 06/10/2011 12:34 PM, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> I looked at that tutorial and it makes mention of nspluginwrapper, but never
> tells you how to use it.
Wiki can be edited by anyone with a Fedora account. If you don't have
one, you can get it within minutes
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Then, I run, as root (not sure if you need to cd
> /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins, but it can't hurt, just in case):
>
> mozilla-plugin-config -i
>
I forgot to mention, in case you are copying the tarball by hand into the
plugin directory... Make sure that ownership i
Christian Kreibich wrote:
> I've upgraded a 64-bit test box from F14 to F15, and am not impressed.
> For starters, the 32-bit Flash plugin no longer works in Firefox. Most
> pages using it stall the browser for 10-15 seconds, then I get a
> black/grey rectangle. I've fol
t_wrapped_version
Assuming all instructions are followed, the only other trouble I've ever had is
the occasional need to delete ~/.mozilla/firefox/*/pluginreg.dat and let the
browser recreate it if it doesn't list the correct version of the Flash plugin.
--
users mailing list
users@
On 06/09/2011 07:09 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> You'll need Linus's patch to workaround the memcpy bug in the plugin. Search
> the list archives/bugzilla.
Yeah, I used to follow that thread last year, when it was still fun to
watch all the finger-pointing. :(
> The beta plugin most likely has u
Christian Kreibich writes:
I've upgraded a 64-bit test box from F14 to F15, and am not impressed.
For starters, the 32-bit Flash plugin no longer works in Firefox. Most
pages using it stall the browser for 10-15 seconds, then I get a
black/grey rectangle. I've followed the instruc
I've upgraded a 64-bit test box from F14 to F15, and am not impressed.
For starters, the 32-bit Flash plugin no longer works in Firefox. Most
pages using it stall the browser for 10-15 seconds, then I get a
black/grey rectangle. I've followed the instructions
http://fedoraprojec
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
