Found this http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html#java-sun, and I remember the plugins directory... except firefox 3.6.11, I can't find any, not in ~/.mozilla, not in /usr/lib64/mozilla. Anyone have a clue for the poor?
mark
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Found thishttp://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html#java-sun, and I remember the plugins directory... except firefox 3.6.11, I can't find any, not in ~/.mozilla, not in /usr/lib64/mozilla. Anyone have a clue for the poor?
that's strange: [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox xulrunner firefox-3.6.11-2.el5.centos.x86_64 xulrunner-1.9.2.11-4.el5.x86_64 [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox -R | grep xulrunner xulrunner >= 1.9.2.11-1 [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -ql xulrunner | grep lib64/mozilla/plugins /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins
something's wrong with your system.
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg writes:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Found thishttp://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html#java-sun, and I remember the plugins directory... except firefox 3.6.11, I can't find any, not in ~/.mozilla, not in /usr/lib64/mozilla. Anyone have a clue for the poor?
that's strange: [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox xulrunner firefox-3.6.11-2.el5.centos.x86_64 xulrunner-1.9.2.11-4.el5.x86_64 [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox -R | grep xulrunner xulrunner >= 1.9.2.11-1 [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -ql xulrunner | grep lib64/mozilla/plugins /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins y something's wrong with your system.
Possibly. Or possibly not. On a closely related topic, can you comment on whether or not it's a good idea to install the nspluginwrapper rpms on x86_64? They seem to be fundamentally broken.
--------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its subsidiaries) confidential information. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. ---------------------------------------------------------------
Lars Hecking wrote:
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg writes:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Found thishttp://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html#java-sun, and I remember the plugins directory... except firefox 3.6.11, I can't find any, not in ~/.mozilla, not in /usr/lib64/mozilla. Anyone have a clue for the poor?
that's strange: [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox xulrunner firefox-3.6.11-2.el5.centos.x86_64 xulrunner-1.9.2.11-4.el5.x86_64 [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox -R | grep xulrunner xulrunner>= 1.9.2.11-1 [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -ql xulrunner | grep lib64/mozilla/plugins /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins y something's wrong with your system.
Possibly. Or possibly not.
not sure what you mean by that?
On a closely related topic, can you comment on whether or not it's a good idea to install the nspluginwrapper rpms on x86_64? They seem to be fundamentally broken.
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.
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 21:39 +0100, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Lars Hecking wrote:
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg writes:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Found thishttp://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html#java-sun, and I remember the plugins directory... except firefox 3.6.11, I can't find any, not in ~/.mozilla, not in /usr/lib64/mozilla. Anyone have a clue for the poor?
that's strange: [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox xulrunner firefox-3.6.11-2.el5.centos.x86_64 xulrunner-1.9.2.11-4.el5.x86_64 [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox -R | grep xulrunner xulrunner>= 1.9.2.11-1 [nthierry@localhost ~]$ rpm -ql xulrunner | grep lib64/mozilla/plugins /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins y something's wrong with your system.
Possibly. Or possibly not.
not sure what you mean by that?
On a closely related topic, can you comment on whether or not it's a good idea to install the nspluginwrapper rpms on x86_64? They seem to be fundamentally broken.
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.
---- Ok lets halt here. I see on a Multilib Install two wrappers.... nswrapper_64_64.libflashplayer.so nswrapper_32_64.libflashplayer.so
with
rpm -q firefox
firefox-3.6.11-2.el5.centos.i386 firefox-3.6.11-2.el5.centos.x86_64 <---default
Kind of stupid but it is a devel machine with the complete distro on it. Which can complicate life further. If you strip it down to one version and no multilib life is easier. The 64 bit flash is really no better in my opinion because when I installed a newer Creative SB Card sound quit under the 64 flash.
John
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.
Test setup. This is a 64-bit machine running CentOS 5.4, all relevant packages removed and a fresh, clean install of firefox 3.0.18 i386, Adobe reader 9.4, flash-plugin from rpmforge. I also extracted the java plugin from jre-6u22-linux-i586-rpm.bin and copied it into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins.
$ ll /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ total 292 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Nov 22 13:09 libflashplayer.so -> /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 77510 Sep 15 09:44 libnpjp2.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 30640 Oct 9 2009 mozplugger.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 179552 Nov 22 13:09 nppdf.so $
firefox starts normally and about:plugins shows the adobe/flash/java plugins are installed. Then I browse to www.javatester.org and click on the "Java Enabled?" button. The result is a crash:
$ firefox Didn't find JVM under /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins firefox: ../../../../src/plugin/solaris/plugin2/common/JavaVM.c:104: InitializeJVM: Assertion `foundJVM' failed. /usr/lib/firefox-3.0.18/run-mozilla.sh: line 131: 6093 Aborted "$prog" ${1+"$@"} $
I get the same result with a binary, /usr/local based installation of firefox 3.6.12 (i386) from mozilla.org.
Next, I am trying the following: install the complete 32-bit java rpm under /usr/java.i386 and link the 32-bin java plugin rather than copy it.
$ cd /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ $ ll total 212 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Nov 22 13:09 libflashplayer.so -> /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 43 Nov 22 13:36 libnpjp2.so -> /usr/java.i386/default/lib/i386/libnpjp2.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 30640 Oct 9 2009 mozplugger.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 179552 Nov 22 13:09 nppdf.so $
Similar result.
$ firefox Error occurred during initialization of VM java/lang/NoClassDefFoundError: java/lang/Object $
The above proves conclusively that the 32-bit firefox browser is broken on a 64-bit system. The culprit is probably java.
Onward to x86_64. Remove all packages, start with a fresh install of Adobe reader, flash plugin (i386), jre-6u22-linux-x64-rpm.bin, firefox 3.0.18 x86_64, *no* nspluginwrapper. about:plugins shows the java plugin only, as expected, and the browser passes the "java enabled" test at javatester.org.
Then I install the i386 nspluginwrapper. No change in about:plugins, but I noticed this
$ ll plugins*/libn* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 38 Nov 22 13:51 plugins-wrapped/libnpjp2.so -> /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/libnpjp2.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Nov 22 13:46 plugins/libnpjp2.so -> /usr/java/default/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so $
i.e. nspluginwrapper.i386 installation has wrapped the native 64-bit java plugin.
Last step is the installation of nspluginwrapper.x86_64 on top of all. All plugins show up and java works.
Summary: only the 64-bit browser works on a 64-bit machine. It needs nspluginwrapper to make use of the 32-bit blob plugins. The 32-bit browser crashes and burns as soon as java (or even java script) is involved. In this round of testing, I haven't seen the removal of the java plugin link from the plugins-wrapped directory that I reported earlier.
--------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its subsidiaries) confidential information. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. ---------------------------------------------------------------
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...
-
JohnS -
Lars Hecking -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg