[CentOS] firefox. java. 64 bit. bleah!

[JohnS]

On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 21:39 +0100, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Lars Hecking wrote:
> > Nicolas Thierry-Mieg writes:
> >> m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> that's strange:
> >> [nthierry at localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox xulrunner
> >> firefox-3.6.11-2.el5.centos.x86_64
> >> xulrunner-1.9.2.11-4.el5.x86_64
> >> [nthierry at localhost ~]$ rpm -q firefox -R | grep xulrunner
> >> xulrunner>= 1.9.2.11-1
> >> [nthierry at 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