Flash support [branched fromRe: F10 on Homebuilt Box - Absolutely Brutal...!!!!]

[Mads Kiilerich]

Scott Robbins wrote, On 11/16/2008 05:18 PM:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 04:30:33PM +0100, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>   
>> 64 bit machine or Flash 9?  
>> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f10preview/en_US/What_is_the_Latest_on_the_Desktop.html#sn-Web_browsers
>>     
>
> I just looked at the release notes, and it's really quite unclear.  
>
> "If you are using Flash 10, you do not need libflashsupport anymore as
> the usage of ALSA has been fixed in this version. 
>
> "Users of Fedora x86_64 must install the nspluginwrapper.i386 package to
> enable the 32-bit Adobe Flash Player plug-in in Firefox, and the
> libflashsupport.i386 package to enable sound from the plugin."
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> So, is it needed or not?  
>   

I thought it was clear but hard to read: That libflashsupport isn't 
"generally" (ie on i386) needed, but on 64-bit it is however still needed.

I proposed a better wording on 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471793 .

> According to a brief test I made yesterday, it may not be.  
> I removed libflashsupport with yum remove on a 64 bit install and sound
> was fine.  
>   

Interesting. Please try to remove your flash-plugin and nspluginwrappers 
and make it work again. And then please add a comment to the bug I 
mentioned.

Oh, by the way: Was it a i386 or x86_64 libflashsupport you uninstalled?

I think much of the flash confusion comes because nspluginwrapper runs 
mozilla-plugin-config on installation. That makes it hard to figure out 
what is going on; it is not only a question of which packages has been 
installed, but also in which order.

/Mads
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3435 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20081116/fda88738/attachment.bin