bnocera at redhat.com
Sat May 24 00:29:16 UTC 2008
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 01:54 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sat, 24.05.08 00:34, Bastien Nocera (bnocera at redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 16:51 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Rahul Sundaram (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said:
> > > > It seems libflashsupport was dropped out of the default package list in
> > > > Fedora 9 and I didn't see any public discussion on the reasons behind this
> > > > change (release notes didn't get updated either until recently
> > > > unfortunately) Can someone familiar with this change explain the reason?
> > >
> > > Check the FESCo logs... general reasoning is that it existed solely
> > > as a crutch for third-party software, IIRC.
> > And I'm sure the people who came up with that idea made sure to nicely
> > ask Adobe to make their Flash plugins depend on it. Or explained to them
> > what that tool did so they can fix their software.
> Adobe Flash 10 doesn't need libflashsupport anymore to work fine on
> ALSA ioplug-based backends such as pulse.
Good stuff then. Thanks.
More information about the devel