On Sunday 13 September 2015 16:40:00 Brian wrote: > On Sun 13 Sep 2015 at 01:04:27 +0000, Liam O'Toole wrote: > > 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 was pointing out the apparent contradiction in advising the Debian > archives over the deb-multimedia ones and not taking it yourself. It > was not really that important to mention. :) > > > >> > 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. > > It still disturbs me a little that Lisi's machine doesn't play 4od with > HAL and flashplugin-nonfree. At
I need to try some time on a fresh install, Brian. For now, I still can't watch 4oD on my TV with an attached Jessie computer, so that comes next. But I have never not had HAL (Trinity before 14 requires it) so I have my doubts. Lisi > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/09/msg00444.html > > there is > > All the ones you mention plus hal-trinity. But so has my husband's > computer. He has only the one libflashplayer.so, the mozilla one. > > I, on the other hand, have three: > /home/lisi/.mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so > /usr/lib/flashplayer-mozilla/libflashplayer.so > /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so > > The second line is ok but the third line should show > > /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flash-mozilla.so > > as a symlink to /etc/alternatives/flash-mozilla.so. > > I think libflashplayer.so in $HOME takes precedence over the alternatives > system. 'ls -l' might indicate which package provides it.
