On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM, William L. Maltby <CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com> wrote: <snip> > 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. > > 1228591673000:1:1:$ > Shockwave Flash 10.0 r12:$ > Shockwave Flash:$ > 2 > 0:application/x-shockwave-flash:Shockwave Flash:swf:$ > 1:application/futuresplash:FutureSplash Player:spl:$ > /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins-wrapped/nswrapper_32_32.nppdf.so:$ > >> > $ rpm -qa | grep flash >> > flash-plugin-10.0.12.36-release >> >> Here's mine: >> >> [lanny at dell2400 ~]$ rpm -qa | grep flash >> flash-plugin-10.0.12.36-2.el5.rf > > 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. > Thank you for all of your ideas and suggestions. I will try to resolve this, hopefully tomorrow and I will let you know, if I got it to work properly or not. Yes, it's a CentOS 5.2 (32 bit) box.