Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility
mg at hacka.net
Wed Nov 17 20:58:28 UTC 2010
On 11/17/2010 09:46 PM, François Cami wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Magnus Glantz<mg at hacka.net> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2010 09:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Wolff III<bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:57:20 +0100,
>>>> Hans de Goede<hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> For those who do not know it yet, recent Fedora glibc updates include
>>>>> an optimized memcpy (which gets used on some processors) which breaks the
>>>>> 64 bit adobe flash plugin.
>>>> I saw memcpy / memmove issues affecting squashfs-tools shortly before the
>>>> F14 alpha. So we had some what of a heads up about the issue over three
>>>> months ago. It is unfortunate that we didn't catch the flash issue during
>>>> prerelease testing of F14. If this really is an important critera for
>>>> releases, maybe we should be having QA testing that flash works.
>>> I will be very, very, disappointed if that gets added as a criteria
>>> for a Fedora release. It would be no different than making sure the
>>> nvidia driver works, and we certainly shouldn't be doing that either.
>> I can relate to that. I'm all for pure open source, but..
>> I really can't see why it would be a bad thing Fedora would do QA on a
>> proprietary software that is very important for a majority of the Fedora
>> If we'd have an open source flash player that almost everyone could run
>> as a substitute, then it would be a different situation. I would say
>> that is the case regarding Nvidia.
> IIRC broken proprietary drivers never stopped us from shipping, but I
> could be wrong.
> Furthermore, no proprietary software vendor supports Fedora timely and
> fixes for issues like this one take months (from their own estimate).
> So by making sure proprietary software works, we could break the
> "First" Foundation.
> I would also argue we would break the "Freedom" Foundation, because
> proprietary software may limit what Fedora can do.
> On the other hand, proprietary software-related bugs found before the
> release would probably receive some attention (and could be forwarded
> to the vendor accordingly), so anyone is free to test whatever they
> use and file bugs.
> I am not saying that we should refrain users from testing proprietary
> software - but we should not make it part of the release criteria.
I'm not saying that a broken Adobe Flash would stop Fedora from shipping.
But.. if we notice that it's broken, we can:
1) Notify Adobe about it, so they -can- provide a fix. If they do not
know, they can't fix it.. The Adobe developers I e-mailed with did say
that they took the issue seriously, they want it to work on Fedora, as
I'm sure a lot people/companies would.
2) Create a work-around for the end-users (as has been done by several
people in the BZ #638477-thread)
There's nothing bad about that is it?
More information about the devel