On 18/3/18 2:49 pm, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
Well, you very well may have the keys for Negativo17 but it is just that whoever is the maintainer missed signing the RPM as the error states.
FWIW, the maintainer at negativo17.org said this error has been corrected (in the comment section at the URL below).
Thanks Tod, it has indeed been rectified.
regards,
Steve
IMHO, since the flash-plugin is available directly from Adobe and their repo it makes little sense to get it from Negativo17. I can't see how they would add value.
The packaging of flash-plugin from Adobe is rather awful (as is typical when vendors supply packages). According to
https://negativo17.org/adobe-flash-plugin/the improvements over the Adobe packaging include:
This package tries to comply as maximum to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines; this means the packages has debuginfo packages, default Fedora’s GCC compile time options (where possible) and standard locations for binaries, data and docs. Features: * Separate Control Center integration package for the native architecture (64 bit/32 bit). * No copying of the plugin around the filesystem after the package is installed; installation in the original Adobe package is all done in %post section! * 32 bit plugin can also be installed along the 64 bit one in a 64 bit environment; this is useful for example with the 32 bit Steam client or 32 bit browsers.Of course, it's still packaging flash, which is a steaming turd that provides very little benefit these days (I'm not counting "it's a great attack vector" as a benefit. ;) )
Unless someone is absolutely forced to use a site that requires flash, not installing the flash-plugin package from anywhere is the best plan.
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org