Re: Stable 64-bit flash
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:25 -0400, Daniel Chen wrote: > The "more clever script" approach was tried - and reverted - back in > early Jaunty. The current flashplugin-installer package downloads from > archive.canonical.com, which cannot distribute non-final Flash > releases. > Nothing seems to have changed on Jaunty installs when installing ubuntu-restricted-extras, does this install via the script or are we talking perhaps at cross logic? Anyway, this seems like a job for Adobe, probably make it in for 10.04. Best Regards, Martin Owens -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flashplugin-nonfree/+bug/326555 On the LP bug page, someone posted a link to http://packages.debian.org/sid/flashplugin-nonfree which supposedly uses the native 64-bit version of flash. Can somebody confirm this? And, if it's true, can a script be used to install it form there isntead? On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 15:34, Joe Terranova wrote: > > A file compare shows that the two libraries are identical. Does this not > > mean that the Ubuntu repositories are already providing the most recent > > Adobe 64-bit flash? > > > > -- > > Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > > br...@brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151 > > > > Look at the postinst file for the package. It downloads the stable 32 > bit version from archive.canonical, and then wraps it with > nspluginwapper. Are you sure you didn't already install 64 alpha > before doing that comparison? > > > Joe Terranova > -- http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
> A file compare shows that the two libraries are identical. Does this not > mean that the Ubuntu repositories are already providing the most recent > Adobe 64-bit flash? > > -- > Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > br...@brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151 > Look at the postinst file for the package. It downloads the stable 32 bit version from archive.canonical, and then wraps it with nspluginwapper. Are you sure you didn't already install 64 alpha before doing that comparison? Joe Terranova -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
What two libraries? Also, note that flashplugin-installer depends on ia32-libs, which is unnecessary for the native 64-bit plugin. On Jun 17, 2009 2:41 PM, "Bruce Miller" wrote: I am puzzled by this thread; but then again, I am a user who lurks on this list, not a developer. Presumably, I do not understand. I run Kubuntu Karmic Alpha2, fully updated. Among the installed packages, I have the following: br...@xenophon:~$ apt-cache show flashplugin-installer Package: flashplugin-installer Priority: optional Section: multiverse/web Installed-Size: 176 Maintainer: Ubuntu MOTU Developers Original-Maintainer: Bart Martens Architecture: amd64 Source: flashplugin-nonfree Version: 10.0.22.87ubuntu2 Replaces: flashplugin (<< 6), flashplugin-nonfree Provides: flashplugin-nonfree Depends: nspluginwrapper (>= 0.9.91.4-2ubuntu1), ia32-libs (>= 2.2ubuntu18), debconf | debconf-2.0, wget, fontconfig Recommends: libasound2-plugins (>= 1.0.16) Suggests: firefox, xulrunner-1.9, firefox-3.0, konqueror-nsplugins, x-ttcidfont-conf, msttcorefonts, ttf-bitstream-vera | ttf-dejavu, ttf-xfree86-nonfree, xfs (>= 1:1.0.1-5) Conflicts: flashplayer-mozilla, flashplugin (<< 6), flashplugin-nonfree (<< 10.0.22.87ubuntu2~), libflashsupport, xfs (<< 1:1.0.1-5) Filename: pool/multiverse/f/flashplugin-nonfree/flashplugin-installer_10.0.22.87ubuntu2_amd64.deb Size: 19124 MD5sum: 1271e320a25fab0fd29833df2d84f574 SHA1: b0389cb7ba3aaecca59fca1d29c3dcb536cc7eae SHA256: 75b63fd3450c5367fc50811e4e5c2418d42f0d987aa2b6fe31e412de4e31 Description: Adobe Flash Player plugin installer This package will download the Flash Player from the net. It is a Netscape/Mozilla type plugin. Any browser based on Netscape or Mozilla can use the Flash plugin. This package currently supports the following browsers: Mozilla, Mozilla-Firefox, Firefox, Iceweasel, and Iceape. Also Galeon and Epiphany can use the Flash plugin. Konqueror can also use the Flash plugin if konqueror-nsplugins is installed. . WARNING: Installing this Ubuntu package causes the Adobe flash plugin to be downloaded from www.adobe.com. The distribution license of the Adobe flash plugin is available at www.adobe.com. Installing this Ubuntu package implies that you have accepted the terms of that license. Homepage: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/FlashPlayer9 Npp-Applications: ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384, 92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a, aa5ca914-c309-495d-91cf-3141bbb04115 Npp-Description: Adobe Flash SWF Player (http://www.adobe.com) Npp-File: libflashplayer.so Npp-Mimetype: application/x-shockwave-flash Npp-Name: Adobe Flash Player (installer) Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug Origin: Ubuntu The following appears to be the latest so-called Alpha version available directly from the Adobe web site: http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/libflashplayer-10.0.22.87.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz A file compare shows that the two libraries are identical. Does this not mean that the Ubuntu repositories are already providing the most recent Adobe 64-bit flash? -- Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada br...@brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151 In the beginning... was the command line. -- *From:* Danny Piccirillo *To:* ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:19:17 PM *Subject:* Stable 64-bit flash IIRC, the Flash 64 bit Alpha almost made it into Intrepid, but was not because it is an alpha. It w... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
I am puzzled by this thread; but then again, I am a user who lurks on this list, not a developer. Presumably, I do not understand. I run Kubuntu Karmic Alpha2, fully updated. Among the installed packages, I have the following: br...@xenophon:~$ apt-cache show flashplugin-installer Package: flashplugin-installer Priority: optional Section: multiverse/web Installed-Size: 176 Maintainer: Ubuntu MOTU Developers Original-Maintainer: Bart Martens Architecture: amd64 Source: flashplugin-nonfree Version: 10.0.22.87ubuntu2 Replaces: flashplugin (<< 6), flashplugin-nonfree Provides: flashplugin-nonfree Depends: nspluginwrapper (>= 0.9.91.4-2ubuntu1), ia32-libs (>= 2.2ubuntu18), debconf | debconf-2.0, wget, fontconfig Recommends: libasound2-plugins (>= 1.0.16) Suggests: firefox, xulrunner-1.9, firefox-3.0, konqueror-nsplugins, x-ttcidfont-conf, msttcorefonts, ttf-bitstream-vera | ttf-dejavu, ttf-xfree86-nonfree, xfs (>= 1:1.0.1-5) Conflicts: flashplayer-mozilla, flashplugin (<< 6), flashplugin-nonfree (<< 10.0.22.87ubuntu2~), libflashsupport, xfs (<< 1:1.0.1-5) Filename: pool/multiverse/f/flashplugin-nonfree/flashplugin-installer_10.0.22.87ubuntu2_amd64.deb Size: 19124 MD5sum: 1271e320a25fab0fd29833df2d84f574 SHA1: b0389cb7ba3aaecca59fca1d29c3dcb536cc7eae SHA256: 75b63fd3450c5367fc50811e4e5c2418d42f0d987aa2b6fe31e412de4e31 Description: Adobe Flash Player plugin installer This package will download the Flash Player from the net. It is a Netscape/Mozilla type plugin. Any browser based on Netscape or Mozilla can use the Flash plugin. This package currently supports the following browsers: Mozilla, Mozilla-Firefox, Firefox, Iceweasel, and Iceape. Also Galeon and Epiphany can use the Flash plugin. Konqueror can also use the Flash plugin if konqueror-nsplugins is installed. . WARNING: Installing this Ubuntu package causes the Adobe flash plugin to be downloaded from www.adobe.com. The distribution license of the Adobe flash plugin is available at www.adobe.com. Installing this Ubuntu package implies that you have accepted the terms of that license. Homepage: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/FlashPlayer9 Npp-Applications: ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384, 92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a, aa5ca914-c309-495d-91cf-3141bbb04115 Npp-Description: Adobe Flash SWF Player (http://www.adobe.com) Npp-File: libflashplayer.so Npp-Mimetype: application/x-shockwave-flash Npp-Name: Adobe Flash Player (installer) Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug Origin: Ubuntu The following appears to be the latest so-called Alpha version available directly from the Adobe web site: http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/libflashplayer-10.0.22.87.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz A file compare shows that the two libraries are identical. Does this not mean that the Ubuntu repositories are already providing the most recent Adobe 64-bit flash? -- Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada br...@brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151 In the beginning... was the command line. From: Danny Piccirillo To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:19:17 PM Subject: Stable 64-bit flash IIRC, the Flash 64 bit Alpha almost made it into Intrepid, but was not because it is an alpha. It was already much more stable than using the 32-bit version on 64-bit Ubuntu, and now that 64-bit Flash alpha 2 is out, i recommend we make an exception, and include it in Karmic. -- http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
But could we ask them as a special request since the 64 bit alpha is great, and much better than the 32-bit final? On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 14:17, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Wednesday 17 June 2009 1:57:08 pm Danny Piccirillo wrote: > > In that case, who is in a position to contact Adobe to see if we can work > > something out? As much as i hate Flash, a stable flashplayer for all > users > > is somewhat high priotiry, no? > > I believe Adobe *intends* it to end up in the partner repo eventually, but > they don't want to put unfinished software in there. > > -- > Mackenzie Morgan > http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com > apt-get moo > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > -- http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
On Wednesday 17 June 2009 1:57:08 pm Danny Piccirillo wrote: > In that case, who is in a position to contact Adobe to see if we can work > something out? As much as i hate Flash, a stable flashplayer for all users > is somewhat high priotiry, no? I believe Adobe *intends* it to end up in the partner repo eventually, but they don't want to put unfinished software in there. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
In that case, who is in a position to contact Adobe to see if we can work something out? As much as i hate Flash, a stable flashplayer for all users is somewhat high priotiry, no? On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 13:49, Daniel Chen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Danny > Piccirillo wrote: > > Ah, how unfortunate. Would it be impossible to get Adobe to allow this in > > time? If we could take the file straight from their website, would that > be > > allowed? > > Regarding whether Adobe will adjust its stance: I don't know. > > Regarding whether downloading the plugin similar to the old > flashplugin-nonfree source approach is a good idea: absolutely not. > Doing so raised a crop of errors that were (mostly) resolved by > downloading directly from archive.canonical.com. > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > Ah, how unfortunate. Would it be impossible to get Adobe to allow this in > time? If we could take the file straight from their website, would that be > allowed? Regarding whether Adobe will adjust its stance: I don't know. Regarding whether downloading the plugin similar to the old flashplugin-nonfree source approach is a good idea: absolutely not. Doing so raised a crop of errors that were (mostly) resolved by downloading directly from archive.canonical.com. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
Ah, how unfortunate. Would it be impossible to get Adobe to allow this in time? If we could take the file straight from their website, would that be allowed? On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 13:42, Daniel Chen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Danny > Piccirillo wrote: > > No exception can be made there? How have exceptions been made before? Is > > there some way to work around that? > > Exceptions to the redistribution terms must be granted by Adobe. > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > No exception can be made there? How have exceptions been made before? Is > there some way to work around that? Exceptions to the redistribution terms must be granted by Adobe. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
No exception can be made there? How have exceptions been made before? Is there some way to work around that? On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 13:25, Daniel Chen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Martin Owens wrote: > > Although getting the script updated to download the correct version > > depending on your arch would probably be a better bet, I bet it's also > > set to be i386 only too. A more clever script would prevent confusion I > > think. > > The "more clever script" approach was tried - and reverted - back in > early Jaunty. The current flashplugin-installer package downloads from > archive.canonical.com, which cannot distribute non-final Flash > releases. > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Martin Owens wrote: > Although getting the script updated to download the correct version > depending on your arch would probably be a better bet, I bet it's also > set to be i386 only too. A more clever script would prevent confusion I > think. The "more clever script" approach was tried - and reverted - back in early Jaunty. The current flashplugin-installer package downloads from archive.canonical.com, which cannot distribute non-final Flash releases. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
By include, do you mean have a package in multiverse that has a script that downloads the flash nonfree player from adobe? (and through the dark dark door, down the dark dark stairs, in the dark dark cellar, some skeletons lived) Although getting the script updated to download the correct version depending on your arch would probably be a better bet, I bet it's also set to be i386 only too. A more clever script would prevent confusion I think. Regards, Martin Owens On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 12:19 -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote: > IIRC, the Flash 64 bit Alpha almost made it into Intrepid, but was not > because it is an alpha. It was already much more stable than using the > 32-bit version on 64-bit Ubuntu, and now that 64-bit Flash alpha 2 is > out, i recommend we make an exception, and include it in Karmic. > > -- > http://www.google.com/profiles/danny.piccirillo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
