On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 10/06/2011 04:19 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > > > RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so
> > there's > > no
> > > > need to wait for it. In this case the 64bit is installed, so
> > there is > > no
> > > > reason to install the 32bit. Unless you want to replace the 64bit
> > by > > the
> > > > 32bit.
> > > > Hmm. Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has
> > > flash-plugin.x86_64 11.0.1.129-0.1.el6.rf rpmforge
> > > > whereas the adobe-linux-i386 repo has
> > > flash-plugin.i386 11.0.1.152-release @adobe-linux-i386
> > > (Build Date: Sat 24 Sep 2011 02:45:27 AM BST).
> >
> > So, why would one replace a 64bit flash-plugin with a 32bit one ?
>
> Not so much that I want to - rather that the 32 bit adobe repo was
> already enabled from when the machine was running SL5 and I have
> only now looked for the adobe-linux-x86_64 repo.
>
> My real point was that the rpmforge plugin is presumably out of
> date if the adobe repo has a newer plugin with a higher release number.
It's quite hard to release before Adobe.
I realise that except for the Fermilab/CERN staff persons, almost all of the
rest of those maintaining material for SL are unpaid volunteers. With that
stated, what is the typical/average/median/whatever delay from the Adobe
release until the SL compatible port for the flash plugin?
In some cases, Adobe adds functionality -- but in most cases it is a matter
of bug and security-hole fixes -- and the sooner one installs a valid
security fix, the better.
Do you have proof that this is a security fix. Because I track the RHEL
packages and no such update has come through their channels. It seems as
if the release was simply their official Flash Player 11 release, rather
than a security fix.
If it is a security fix, even Red Hat is behind. Somehow I don't believe
that, but for you to provide proof of what you state. Thanks.
--
-- dag wieers, [email protected], http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, [email protected], http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
