On 03/18/18 11:57, Stephen Morris wrote: > You are right, I wasn't looking at it from that perspective, I was > approaching it > from the perspective of dnf being able to decide which was the best package > to use > if there were multiples providing the same functionality. I may have to > disable to > negativo17 flash repository, or set up a permanent exclude of the flash > package if > there are other useful packages in the negativo17 repository that the adobe > repository doesn't provide, but before deciding which way to go I will have to > thoroughly investigate what is in both repositories.
The flash plugin provided by negativo17 is *exactly* the same as that provided by Adobe which I've installed in a VM for the rare time I need it. Adobe's [egreshko@f27k flash-plugin]$ sha256sum libflashplayer.so 3989b0c4f538050317d5a4b678b60ed91b4149f54bb1ad9f84e3384f4bfe3b22 libflashplayer.so negativo17's (pulled from the rpm via rpm2cpio) [egreshko@meimei plugins]$ sha256sum libflashplayer.so 3989b0c4f538050317d5a4b678b60ed91b4149f54bb1ad9f84e3384f4bfe3b22 libflashplayer.so So, there is no *best* when it comes to functionality. Just for clarity, when negativo17 repackages the plugin in "improved" form they bump the version so that if you have both adobe and their repository enabled dnf will see theirs as the "most recent". Unless someone is aware that is being done they may conclude the negativo17 package somehow "better" or an upgrade over what Adobe is supplying. flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-release.x86_64 Adobe flash-plugin-29.0.0.113-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm negativo17 ^ -- Conjecture is just a conclusion based on incomplete information. It isn't a fact.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
