On 2015-09-12, Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat 12 Sep 2015 at 20:21:40 +0000, Liam O'Toole wrote: > >> On 2015-09-11, Paul van der Vlis <p...@vandervlis.nl> wrote: >> > Op 09-09-15 om 23:43 schreef Liam O'Toole: >> >> >> >> I've been using Flash from deb-multimedia for years without issue (on >> >> stable releases, I grant you). I use the following pinning: >> >> >> >> Package: * >> >> Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages >> >> Pin-Priority: 100 >> > >> > I don't know what this is doing, do you? >> >> Yes. When a package is available in both debian and deb-multimedia, the >> former is always preferred. > > Except when you use "Flash from deb-multimedia for years".
I don't follow. Could you please explain? > >> > I think you will have many packages on your system what are coming from >> > deb-multimedia. Maybe that's what you want, no idea. >> >> Not so. See above. >> >> > I think the people from deb-multimedia are doing their best to make good >> > packages. But I think Debian is too complex to mix with a repo like >> > deb-multimedia with many packages. Maybe you don't have problems with >> > flash, but I think your system is not "rock solid" anymore. >> > And what does deb-multimedia bring you for that? >> >> The system is no longer 'rock solid' as soon as you install any >> third-party software, be it via flashplayer-mozilla or >> flashplugin-nonfree or anything else. > > Both packages use the same source from Adobe. Why specifically should > one be less solid than the other when it comes to watching flash video? The point I was trying to make above neither is no more or less 'rock solid' than the other. -- Liam