>>
>> Ah. Will install then.
>
> FWIW.
>
> [egreshko@meimei ~]$ rpm -qa | grep -i adobe
> adobe-release-x86_64-1.0-1.noarch
> AdobeReader_enu-9.5.1-1.i486
> [egreshko@meimei ~]$ rpm -q nspluginwrapper
> package nspluginwrapper is not installed
>
> N
imei ~]$ rpm -qa | grep -i adobe
adobe-release-x86_64-1.0-1.noarch
AdobeReader_enu-9.5.1-1.i486
[egreshko@meimei ~]$ rpm -q nspluginwrapper
package nspluginwrapper is not installed
Never had a crash..
--
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger
and bett
AdobeReader, the site
showed needing to install nspluginwrapper)
I'm not sure if there's an x86_64 Reader now
No. Only flash-plugin. When I added the Adobe x86_64 repo, I was able
to get flash, but no reader. So I had to add the i686 repo as well.
-- if so, you won't _ne
owed needing to install nspluginwrapper)
I'm not sure if there's an x86_64 Reader now -- if so, you won't _need_ the
wrapper, but you may want it anyway, because it keeps the process spaces
separate, which protects you from crashes.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect
On f17 x86_64 I have installed AdobeReader and it seems to work just
fine without nspluginwrapper.i686
Do I really need nspluginwrapper.i686?
(When I googled about how to yum install AdobeReader, the site showed
needing to install nspluginwrapper)
--
users mailing list
users
On 04/23/11 06:21, James Wilkinson wrote:
> g wrote:
>> latest flash is 10.2.159.1.
>>
>> anything prior has security and crash problems.
> Craig White objected:
>> the implication being that the specific version mentioned doesn't have
>> known security and crash problems which I think both have be
g wrote:
> latest flash is 10.2.159.1.
>
> anything prior has security and crash problems.
Craig White objected:
> the implication being that the specific version mentioned doesn't have
> known security and crash problems which I think both have been found to
> be incorrect implications.
JD asked
On 04/22/2011 09:04 PM, Craig White wrote:
<>
>
> the implication being that the specific version mentioned doesn't have
> known security and crash problems which I think both have been found to
> be incorrect implications.
i do not know what 'implications' you are implying, but i believe th
On 04/22/11 14:04, Craig White wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:29 +, g wrote:
>> On 04/22/2011 07:31 PM, JD wrote:
>> <>
>>
>>> if the crash of, say flash plugin crashes FF,
>>> then I will re-install it.
>> latest flash is 10.2.159.1.
>>
>> anything prior has security and crash problems.
>>
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 20:29 +, g wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 07:31 PM, JD wrote:
> <>
>
> > if the crash of, say flash plugin crashes FF,
> > then I will re-install it.
>
> latest flash is 10.2.159.1.
>
> anything prior has security and crash problems.
>
>
the implication being that the sp
On 04/22/11 13:29, g wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 07:31 PM, JD wrote:
> <>
>
>> if the crash of, say flash plugin crashes FF,
>> then I will re-install it.
> latest flash is 10.2.159.1.
>
> anything prior has security and crash problems.
>
>
Yup! That's what I have.
Let's hope Adobe keeps it free of secu
On 04/22/2011 07:31 PM, JD wrote:
<>
> if the crash of, say flash plugin crashes FF,
> then I will re-install it.
latest flash is 10.2.159.1.
anything prior has security and crash problems.
--
peace out.
tc.hago,
g
.
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
**
help microsoft
3 version to F14.
> Without nspluginwrapper, Firefox plugins run in the same process as
> Firefox itself. This means that if a Firefox plugin crashes, it takes
> down the entire browser.
>
> With nspluginwrapper, Firefox plugins run in separate processes. This
> should mean that a plugin c
On 04/22/2011 06:17 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
<>
> Without nspluginwrapper, Firefox plugins run in the same process as
<>
> With nspluginwrapper, Firefox plugins run in separate processes.
<>
ahhh. yes. you refreshed the brain cells. [should stick this time] this
was
JD wrote:
> I uninstalled it and there was no complaint of any dependency.
> It must have been a remnant from F13 when performed the
> upgrade to F14, and the next yum update simply installed
> updated the F13 version to F14.
Without nspluginwrapper, Firefox plugins run in the sam
On 04/22/11 09:05, g wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 03:13 PM, JD wrote:
> <>
>
>> As I said, my OS is 32 bit, and all my rpms are 32 bit.
>> I have no 64 bit anything.
> actually, you stated "Is nspluginwrapper needed for i686 platforms?",
> which infers 32 bit.
On 04/22/2011 03:13 PM, JD wrote:
<>
> As I said, my OS is 32 bit, and all my rpms are 32 bit.
> I have no 64 bit anything.
actually, you stated "Is nspluginwrapper needed for i686 platforms?",
which infers 32 bit. [just kidding with you. no offense intended]
> I was
On 04/22/11 01:55, g wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 04:16 AM, JD wrote:
>> Is nspluginwrapper needed for i686 platforms?
> have a look at;
>
>http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html
>
> for a better understanding of what nspluginwrapper is about.
>
> hth.
&
On 04/22/2011 04:16 AM, JD wrote:
> Is nspluginwrapper needed for i686 platforms?
have a look at;
http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html
for a better understanding of what nspluginwrapper is about.
hth.
later.
--
peace out.
tc.hago,
g
.
in a free world without fences,
Is nspluginwrapper needed for i686 platforms?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
20 matches
Mail list logo
