Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

freshplayerplugin require google chrome installed... an alternative could beoffer a package with built-in flash PPAPI on freshflashplayer... El 19/10/15 a las 08:42, Marco Trevisan escribió: Il 12/10/2015 21:39, Bryan Quigley ha scritto: Hi all, Mozilla has announced their plan to drop

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

On 19/10/15 18:31, Bryan Quigley wrote: > Hi Chris, > > The "do nothing" plan in this case would result in features being > taken away during the primetime* life of the 16.04 LTS. If we > knowingly can't support them for even 2 years (likely more like 1 > year), should the LTS include them at

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

The HAL "dependencies", of which we speak, is an optional DRM test that most people don't see in regular use. The disk reported by HAL is tested to avoid playing some stuff into some obviously-named recording device. Every Flash Player from Adobe would use it, not just the NPAPI one. If you don't

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

Il 12/10/2015 21:39, Bryan Quigley ha scritto: > Hi all, > > Mozilla has announced their plan to drop NPAPI support for everything > but Flash at the end of 2016[1]. That got me thinking that we might > have to drop it sooner than that for 16.04 LTS [2] - which is what > happened fro Chromium

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

Il 19/10/2015 15:21, Ramon Marquez ha scritto: > The problem of freshplayerplugin is that require Google Chrome > installed. I too use freshplayerplugin and it work excellent! Well, not really when using the Canonical partner repository, as we ship that plugin inside the adobe-flashplugin

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

But remember that Adobe Flash Player NPAPI ends its life cycle on 2017 and Mozilla Firefox It has no intention of support Flash Player PPAPI which will continue to support by Adobe. El 19/10/15 a las 08:57, Marco Trevisan escribió: Il 19/10/2015 15:21, Ramon Marquez ha scritto: The problem

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

I think this guy [1] can help us and create packages for hal (all hal or just the library) so Flash could depend on it. I think there is no harm if we keep a package just for Flash DRM. But we just need to maintain that until Flash is discontinued. [1] https://launchpad.net/~mjblenner

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

Simple: When Firefox without Flash support comes, add to Firefox package a conflict statement for Flash package and maybe hal too. Seems fine to you? 2015-10-19 18:48 GMT-02:00 Ramon Marquez : > and what will happen when flash was discontinued? > > El 19/10/15 a las

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

and what will happen when flash was discontinued? El 19/10/15 a las 16:04, Marcos Alano escribió: I think this guy [1] can help us and create packages for hal (all hal or just the library) so Flash could depend on it. I think there is no harm if we keep a package just for Flash DRM. But we just

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

Hi Chris, The "do nothing" plan in this case would result in features being taken away during the primetime* life of the 16.04 LTS. If we knowingly can't support them for even 2 years (likely more like 1 year), should the LTS include them at all? 1- Minimal option: Just mention that the support

Re: Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

On 12/10/15 20:39, Bryan Quigley wrote: > Hi all, > > Mozilla has announced their plan to drop NPAPI support for everything > but Flash at the end of 2016[1]. That got me thinking that we might > have to drop it sooner than that for 16.04 LTS [2] - which is what > happened fro Chromium for 14.04

Firefox/NPAPI/Flash discussion for UDS

Hi all, Mozilla has announced their plan to drop NPAPI support for everything but Flash at the end of 2016[1]. That got me thinking that we might have to drop it sooner than that for 16.04 LTS [2] - which is what happened fro Chromium for 14.04 LTS. Flash (NPAPI Linux) is also possibly going