Re: [SECURITY] Fedora Core 3 Test Update: firefox-1.0.6-0.1.fc3

[Christopher Aillon]

Robert Nichols wrote:
>  I find that with firefox-1.0.6-0.1 the Flashblock 1.2.9 extension no
>  longer recognizes the whitelisted web sites that should be allowed to
>  load Flash content.  The sites are still listed in the Options dialog,
>  but their Flash content is being blocked. 
I was able to reproduce this issue using Flashblock 1.2.9.  However, please note that
1.3.2 is the latest version of Flashblock, and works fine with the 1.0.6 RPMs as far as I
can tell with my testing.  I would advise updating to Flashblock 1.3.2.

Thanks for your feedback with the RPM!  It's very much appreciated.

Optional Dependent RPMs

[Steve Friedman]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christopher Aillon wrote:

>  Robert Nichols wrote:
> > I find that with firefox-1.0.6-0.1 the Flashblock 1.2.9 extension no
> > longer recognizes the whitelisted web sites that should be allowed to
> > load Flash content.  The sites are still listed in the Options dialog,
> > but their Flash content is being blocked.
>
>  I was able to reproduce this issue using Flashblock 1.2.9.  However, please 
>  note that 1.3.2 is the latest version of Flashblock, and works fine with the 
>  1.0.6 RPMs as far as I can tell with my testing.  I would advise updating to 
>  Flashblock 1.3.2.
>
>  Thanks for your feedback with the RPM!  It's very much appreciated.
>  
This is a major gripe that I have with RPM.  There is no way for the 
firefox RPM to specify that the Flashblock RPM needs to be upgraded IFF 
flashblock is installed.  (The problem that we typically face is upgrading 
the kernel and nvidia -- there is no automated way to have the system grab 
a consistent set.  Of course, this is harder because the nvidia RPM 
changes)

Steve Friedman

Optional Dependent RPMs

[Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams]

On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 17:14 -0400, Steve Friedman wrote:
>  On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  
>  > Robert Nichols wrote:
>  >> I find that with firefox-1.0.6-0.1 the Flashblock 1.2.9 extension no
>  >> longer recognizes the whitelisted web sites that should be allowed to
>  >> load Flash content.  The sites are still listed in the Options dialog,
>  >> but their Flash content is being blocked.
>  >
>  > I was able to reproduce this issue using Flashblock 1.2.9.  However, please 
>  > note that 1.3.2 is the latest version of Flashblock, and works fine with the 
>  > 1.0.6 RPMs as far as I can tell with my testing.  I would advise updating to 
>  > Flashblock 1.3.2.
>  >
>  > Thanks for your feedback with the RPM!  It's very much appreciated.
>  >
>  
>  This is a major gripe that I have with RPM.  There is no way for the 
>  firefox RPM to specify that the Flashblock RPM needs to be upgraded IFF 
>  flashblock is installed. 
Conflicts: Flashblock < 1.3.2

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez(a)ivazquez.net&gt;
http://fedora.ivazquez.net/

gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72

Optional Dependent RPMs

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 7/19/05, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez(a)ivazquez.net&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 17:14 -0400, Steve Friedman wrote:
>  > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  >
>  > > Robert Nichols wrote:
>  > >> I find that with firefox-1.0.6-0.1 the Flashblock 1.2.9 extension no
>  > >> longer recognizes the whitelisted web sites that should be allowed to
>  > >> load Flash content.  The sites are still listed in the Options dialog,
>  > >> but their Flash content is being blocked.
>  > >
>  > > I was able to reproduce this issue using Flashblock 1.2.9.  However, please
>  > > note that 1.3.2 is the latest version of Flashblock, and works fine with the
>  > > 1.0.6 RPMs as far as I can tell with my testing.  I would advise updating to
>  > > Flashblock 1.3.2.
>  > >
>  > > Thanks for your feedback with the RPM!  It's very much appreciated.
>  > >
>  >
>  > This is a major gripe that I have with RPM.  There is no way for the
>  > firefox RPM to specify that the Flashblock RPM needs to be upgraded IFF
>  > flashblock is installed.
>  
>  Conflicts: Flashblock < 1.3.2
>   
Isnt the problem with this that firefox would need to know about
flashblock and any other optional packages.. The best I could see is
each of the optional packages putting in a

Requires: firefox = 1.0.4

to make sure they only are with their working version.

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator

Optional Dependent RPMs

[Jef Spaleta]

On 7/19/05, Stephen J. Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Isnt the problem with this that firefox would need to know about
>  flashblock and any other optional packages.. The best I could see is
>  each of the optional packages putting in a
>  
>  Requires: firefox = 1.0.4
>  
>  to make sure they only are with their working version. 
This would require the flaskblock developers and maintainers to be
able to read the future :->

why exactly is flashblock no longer operating? Did firefox upstream
change the api for plugins?  If thats the case, does firefox expose a
versioned api for plugins to check?  If that is the case, rpm could be
taught to check the exposed api version string and automatically set
provides and requires for firefox and plugins via a new macro.

-jef

Optional Dependent RPMs

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 7/19/05, Steve Friedman <steve(a)adsi-m4.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>  
>  > Robert Nichols wrote:
>  >> I find that with firefox-1.0.6-0.1 the Flashblock 1.2.9 extension no
>  >> longer recognizes the whitelisted web sites that should be allowed to
>  >> load Flash content.  The sites are still listed in the Options dialog,
>  >> but their Flash content is being blocked.
>  >
>  > I was able to reproduce this issue using Flashblock 1.2.9.  However, please
>  > note that 1.3.2 is the latest version of Flashblock, and works fine with the
>  > 1.0.6 RPMs as far as I can tell with my testing.  I would advise updating to
>  > Flashblock 1.3.2. 
>  >
>  > Thanks for your feedback with the RPM!  It's very much appreciated.
>  >
>  
>  This is a major gripe that I have with RPM.  There is no way for the
>  firefox RPM to specify that the Flashblock RPM needs to be upgraded IFF
>  flashblock is installed.  (The problem that we typically face is upgrading
>  the kernel and nvidia -- there is no automated way to have the system grab
>  a consistent set.  Of course, this is harder because the nvidia RPM
>  changes)
>   
I am probably misunderstanding the problem, but I dont see how 2
different code bases can really know that the other needs to be
updated. How is the Firefox to know that flashblock needs to be
updated? flashblock might have worked perfectly well with 1.0.4 but
not with 1.0.6? It would seem to require a larger testing change on
the firefox developers than needed. The Flashblock RPM could specify
that it works only with the 1.0.4 version of firefox which would
require that the admin would need to deal with the conflict manually
(eg if flashblock doenst have a newer rpm remove it.) Otherwise you
would need to tie together the packaging of the main rpm with all of
its possible children rpms (e.g. when building the 1.0.6 make sure
that all the xpi rpms are at their latest versions in the build tree).


>  Steve Friedman
>  
>  --
>  fedora-test-list mailing list
>  fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  To unsubscribe:
>  http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>   

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator

Optional Dependent RPMs

[Horst H. von Brand]

Steve Friedman <steve(a)adsi-m4.com&gt; wrote:

[...]

>  This is a major gripe that I have with RPM.  There is no way for the
>  firefox RPM to specify that the Flashblock RPM needs to be upgraded
>  IFF flashblock is installed.  (The problem that we typically face is
>  upgrading the kernel and nvidia -- there is no automated way to have
>  the system grab a consistent set.  Of course, this is harder because
>  the nvidia RPM changes) 
Flashblock version depends on firefox version, I'd assume...
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: [phone]
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              [phone]
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  [phone]