> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:49:22 +0100
> "KS" == Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
KS> Bernhard Gschaider wrote: Also, sitewide plugins are better in
KS> /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ which comes from the xulrunner rpm.
>> You're right. I wasn't aware of this directory. The
Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
KS> Also, sitewide plugins are better in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/
KS> which comes from the xulrunner rpm.
You're right. I wasn't aware of this directory. The funny thing
is: the flash-plugin did a symbolic link to the .so there, but firefox
doesn't recogniz
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Bernhard Gschaider <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:03:26 +0100
> > "KS" == Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>KS> Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
>>> I noticed, that the directory /usr/lib/firefox-3.0b5/plugins/
>>>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:03:26 +0100
> "KS" == Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
KS> Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
>> I noticed, that the directory /usr/lib/firefox-3.0b5/plugins/
>> is NOT created on CentOS 5.2. Therefor for instance the
>> flash-plugin is not install
Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
I noticed, that the directory
/usr/lib/firefox-3.0b5/plugins/
is NOT created on CentOS 5.2. Therefor for instance the flash-plugin
is not installed for the new firefox
(After manually creating the directory and setting the right symlink
it works all right)
installing a
I noticed, that the directory
/usr/lib/firefox-3.0b5/plugins/
is NOT created on CentOS 5.2. Therefor for instance the flash-plugin
is not installed for the new firefox
(After manually creating the directory and setting the right symlink
it works all right)
_
6 matches
Mail list logo
