Lars Hecking wrote:
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg writes:
nspluginwrapper is for running 32-bit plugins in a 64-bit browser. Now that we have functional 64-bit flash and java plugins I don't see the need, but YMMV.
We do not have a functional 64-bit flash plugin, and no 64-bit adobe plugin, so we need the wrapper for those.
I've done some systematic testing this morning. If you don't want to read everything below, the summary is that on an x86_64 system, only the 64-bit java plugin works, and the 32-bit plugin crashes. This means that the only working setup on x86_64 is firefox + java plugin x86_64, nspluginwrapper plus Adobe + flash 32-bit plugins. The brave may try the beta 64-bit flash plugin.
the beta x86_64 flash plugin is what I was referring to. I've been using it for a while (from rpmforge) and it works well for me.
my setup, which works fine on several systems with different hardware, is pure x86_64. No nspluginwrapper, I dropped that when the 64-bit flash plugin was satisfactory for me. On the system I'm writing from I have: flash-plugin-10.2.161.23-0.1.el5.rf.x86_64 jre-1.6.0_18-fcs.x86_64
I don't use the acrobat plugin, I usually open pdfs with evince. I also only activate java on a few specific sites (yes I know I should update it).
[nthierry@localhost ~]$ l /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/ total 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 41 Nov 17 08:48 libflashplayer.so -> /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Jul 6 22:14 libnpjp2.so -> /usr/java/default/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so
I use seamonkey (x86_64) rather than firefox, but I just tested both java (at www.javatester.org) and flash (youtube) in firefox x86_64 and they both work.
But as I said, YMMV...