[CentOS] Firefox 3.0.4 and Adobe Flash (CentOS 5 (32bit))
William L. Maltby
CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com
Thu Dec 11 16:58:50 UTC 2008
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 11:10 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM, William L. Maltby
> <CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com> wrote:
> >> are now using? My box is fully updated. In Add Ons, for Plug Ins, I
> >> see Shockwave Flash v. 9.0 r124 and the rest is Mplayer stuff. TIA
> > On my 5.2 CentOS, pluginreg.dat has this.
> > Shockwave Flash 10.0 r12
> Bill: Mine has this:
> Shockwave Flash 9.0 r48:$
> Shockwave Flash:$
> 0:application/x-shockwave-flash:Shockwave Flash:swf:$
> 1:application/futuresplash:FutureSplash Player:spl:$
I think you should dump that old version (if you're CentOS 5.x?) and get
it updated to the 10.2 Why your plkuginreg.dat has 9 while your rpm
shows 10.x, I couldn't guess.
However, mine is wrapped.
Shockwave Flash 10.0 r12:$
> > $ rpm -qa | grep flash
> > flash-plugin-10.0.12.36-release
> Here's mine:
> [lanny at dell2400 ~]$ rpm -qa | grep flash
Your's is from rpmforge now. I don't have experience with it, so I can't
offer if that's the problem. Mine came from the adobe site, installed
flawlessly and worked OOTB (Out Of The Box).
With both having the same rel/ver, I'm not sure what's different about
the rpmforge version.
> You have been looking into the Adobe .pdf issue with Firefox during
> the past few days.
> Do you think this problem with Flash might be related to that? Or, do
> I have something screwed up on my box? TIA, Lanny
Well, ATM, all I know is that the pluginreg.dat has a version that
doesn't match what rpm shows. I would get those consistent first. If it
were me (being comfortable with "risky behavior"), I'd uninstall the
rpm, make sure plugins don't include it anymore (if not, we'll have to
think since it says "don't edit") and re-install. Rpmforge is probably
OK, but the adobe site would also be OK AFAICT from my experience.
> <snip sig stuff>
More information about the CentOS