Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Heiko Baums wrote: > I completely disagree. Flash can, of course, do much more than just > video. But video currently is the most important feature. And I never > understood why all those video portals thought they had to implement > those videos in this proprietar

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Alexander Lam wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Cushing > wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: >>> let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a >>> quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:57:56 -0400 schrieb Caleb Cushing : > meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I > did try the youtube html5 beta and it just didn't work well. For me YouTube HTML5 is working much better than the Flash stuff (despite the missing implementations of

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

Hello, On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Cushing wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: >> let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a >> quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim >> it's place. > > meh! flash

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:51:51 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baums : > The HTML5 version of YouTube doesn't work for me, too. For the time until webm is implemented in every browser and YouTube's HTML5 version is the default also for the embedded videos, I found a solution for Firefox for watching YouTube vi

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

Just to clarify the build process that goes on here: 1) make a clean chroot (mkarchroot - only needs done once) 2) build package in chroot (makechrootpkg) 3) upload package to staging area and commit to svn (e.g. testingpkg) 4) release package on master server adding it to repo (e.g. db-testing)

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a > quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim > it's place. meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I did try the y

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: > 2010/6/15 Ng Oon-Ee : >> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote: >>> > HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would >>> > go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

2010/6/15 Ng Oon-Ee : > On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote: >> > HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would >> > go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the >> > other way round. >> Youtube uses webm now, not h.264. >> >> F

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote: > > HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would > > go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the > > other way round. > Youtube uses webm now, not h.264. > > Firefox should have support in

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

> HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would > go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the > other way round. Youtube uses webm now, not h.264. Firefox should have support in their nightly builds.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 23:51 +0200, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:09:40 +0300 > schrieb Ionuț Bîru : > > > lightspark > > Lightspark can't play YouTube videos and Samorost 1 and 2 (from The > Humble Indie Bundle) and it needs pulseaudio (yet another one of those > senseless, resource

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

Am Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:09:40 +0300 schrieb Ionuț Bîru : > lightspark Lightspark can't play YouTube videos and Samorost 1 and 2 (from The Humble Indie Bundle) and it needs pulseaudio (yet another one of those senseless, resource-wasting daemons). YouTube and Samorost 1 and 2 are the only reasons

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On 06/15/2010 10:09 PM, Christoffer Hirth wrote: > ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger: >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma >>> wrote: Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Christoffer Hirth wrote: > ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger: >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote: >> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma >> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Al

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users? > > > > - keep it and use Flashblock addon (

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On 06/16/2010 12:04 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma wrote: Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users? - keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma > wrote: >> Hi, >> since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users? > > - keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) > - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) > -

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

Thanks. I went for * use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper All you need to do is install nspluginwrapper-flash package from AUR. maybe this package can be Pushed in repos and carried as replacement for flashplugin 64bit [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6232 Can this package be i

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:55:57PM -0400, Ray Kohler wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma > wrote: > > Hi, > > since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users? > > - keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) > - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma wrote: > Hi, > since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users? - keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) - use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper - use 32-bit plugin with

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users? Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com

Re: [arch-general] Apache: hide real dir structure

Thanks. That worked :)

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > I'll keep this installed despite the security problem. Combined with > flashblock, I can at least watch youtube this way. Force-removing it by > a dummy update is something I don't want. Same here. I block all plugins and js by default any

Re: [arch-general] File Associations for firefox & thunderbird :)^

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: > I am a full time KDE user and I don't have GNOME or its libraries. > Firefox and Thunderbird keep asking me to choose applications to open .pdf, > .doc, .xls, http://, etc. > Is there no package which can fix the file associations for

Re: [arch-general] Apache: hide real dir structure

On 06/15/2010 02:13 PM, Gaurish Sharma wrote: Hi, On the Arch Server running Apache. I have Control Panel for which I want to hide real directory name. Don't want to disclose the real location it. Can I display domain.com/foo1/foo2/foo3/ as subdomain(foo.domain.com) where foo.domain.com points

[arch-general] Apache: hide real dir structure

Hi, On the Arch Server running Apache. I have Control Panel for which I want to hide real directory name. Don't want to disclose the real location it. Can I display domain.com/foo1/foo2/foo3/ as subdomain(foo.domain.com) where foo.domain.com points to --> domain.com/foo1/foo2/foo3 If yes, then

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64

On Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:23 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Am 15.06.2010 18:22, schrieb Andreas Radke: > > Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:12:38 +0300 > > schrieb Ionuț Bîru : > >> the current x86_64 version of flashplugin has security problems and > >> adobe dropped/temporally closed x86_64 releases. > >> >

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Aleksis Jauntēvs wrote: > On Tuesday 15 June 2010 19:37:00 Pierre Schmitz wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:23:14 +0300, Aleksis Jauntēvs >> >> wrote: >> > I dont think that repo.db should be signed and it is enough to sign only >> > the >> > packages. As I unders

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tuesday 15 June 2010 19:37:00 Pierre Schmitz wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:23:14 +0300, Aleksis Jauntēvs > > wrote: > > I dont think that repo.db should be signed and it is enough to sign only > > the > > packages. As I understand so far the only reason to sign repo.db file is > > to > > pre

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:23:14 +0300, Aleksis Jauntēvs wrote: > I dont think that repo.db should be signed and it is enough to sign only > the > packages. As I understand so far the only reason to sign repo.db file is > to > prevent "replay" situations in repos. It's the other way round: signing

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tuesday 15 June 2010 18:47:41 Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto > > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote: > >>> I think that we should avoid signing files remotely. > >> > >> Is there any precise reason?

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote: >>> I think that we should avoid signing files remotely. >> Is there any precise reason? If it is because "that remote place could be >> compromised" well any dev computer c

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote: >> I think that we should avoid signing files remotely. > Is there any precise reason? If it is because "that remote place could be > compromised" well any dev computer could be compromized too ! The main reason is that we would need to kee

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On 15 June 2010 16:55, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Dimitrios Apostolou >> wrote: >> >>> Moreover, instead of building all packages in the private PCs of >>> developers, >>> I think it is preferable to sub

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On 15 June 2010 16:46, Dan McGee wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Guillaume ALAUX > wrote: > >>How exactly is core and extra database populated? > >> Moreover, instead of building all packages in the private PCs of > > developers > > Packages are not build on developers computers but on

Re: [arch-general] Open Letter (Plea for Medical/Help Assistance) to World Leaders

On 15 June 2010 19:50, Mauro Santos wrote: > On 06/15/2010 02:35 PM, Gaurish Sharma wrote: >> Spam? >> > > Most probably yes. Most definitely yes. I remember the name, so this is one persistent spam bot. I'm just afraid banning the IP might block an entire group of users. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCA

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: Moreover, instead of building all packages in the private PCs of developers, I think it is preferable to submit PKGBUILDs to build servers (via web interface maybe) and let the serve

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote: >>How exactly is core and extra database populated? >> Moreover, instead of building all packages in the private PCs of > developers > Packages are not build on developers computers but on build machines as > explained here http://wiki.archli

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

>How exactly is core and extra database populated? > Moreover, instead of building all packages in the private PCs of developers Packages are not build on developers computers but on build machines as explained here http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacbuild

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: >> >> And keep in mind that package signing per se will not solve this kind >> of problems. Repository database signing is more important for that >> solution, but is a problem in the

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On 06/15/2010 04:57 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: And keep in mind that package signing per se will not solve this kind of problems. Repository database signing is more important for that solution, but is a problem in the current workflow of A

Re: [arch-general] Package signing for the umpteenth time (was Re: unrealircd 3.2.8.1-2 contains backdoor)

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: And keep in mind that package signing per se will not solve this kind of problems. Repository database signing is more important for that solution, but is a problem in the current workflow of Arch developers. How exactly is core and extra data

Re: [arch-general] Open Letter (Plea for Medical/Help Assistance) to World Leaders

On 06/15/2010 02:35 PM, Gaurish Sharma wrote: > Spam? > Most probably yes. -- Mauro Santos

Re: [arch-general] Open Letter (Plea for Medical/Help Assistance) to World Leaders

Spam?

[arch-general] Open Letter (Plea for Medical/Help Assistance) to World Leaders

[***URGENT***] 15 June 2010 Tuesday 5:50 P.M. Singapore Time To (long list of recipients): Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) Reporters Sans Frontières (Reporters without Broders) International Comittee of the Red Cross International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Socie

Re: [arch-general] File Associations for firefox & thunderbird :)^

On 15/06/10 09:19, Peter Lewis wrote: On Tuesday 15 Jun 2010 at 06:48 Madhurya Kakati wrote: I am a full time KDE user and I don't have GNOME or its libraries. Firefox and Thunderbird keep asking me to choose applications to open .pdf, .doc, .xls, http://, etc. Is there no package which can fix

Re: [arch-general] File Associations for firefox & thunderbird :)^

On Tuesday 15 Jun 2010 at 06:48 Madhurya Kakati wrote: > > I am a full time KDE user and I don't have GNOME or its libraries. > > Firefox and Thunderbird keep asking me to choose applications to open > > .pdf, .doc, .xls, http://, etc. > > Is there no package which can fix the file