On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Todd And
Margo Chester <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09/03/2011 01:39 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic
wrote:
> Todd And Margo Chester wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I "finally" figured this out. The problem is
with the 64 bit
>> Firefox binaries from releases.mozilla.org.
(The 64 bit RPMs
>> floating around do not have this problem.)
>>
>> Work around:
>>
>> # mv /usr/lib/mozilla /usr/lib/mozilla.000
>> # ln -s /usr/lib64/mozilla /usr/lib/mozilla
>>
>> I filed a bug on this:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684441
>>
>> Thanks to everyone for their helpful tips and
suggestions!
>>
>> -T
> I compiled Firefox 6 rpm based on the Remi's Fedora
src.rpm and 64-bit
> version works as expected with 64-bit flash plugin.
>
is just the binaries from releases.mozilla.org
that do not.
On 09/03/2011 11:49 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
The issue that you're running into is a hallmark of
exactly why source builds (or in your case 3rd party unpackaged
binaries) and package management don't mix. You're trying to
circumvent the way the system was designed to operate, and then
complaining when it doesn't act as you'd expect it to.
This applies pretty much across the board regardless of
distribution, whether is use deb or rpm. Use the package
management system your distribution provides.
The one my provider provides is way out of date and, arguably
because of it,
a security hazard.
The problem with Mozilla.org's binary is that it is looking at the
32 bit
location for the plugins and not the 64 bit location. It is a bug.
I also trust Mozilla.org's competence at these things and I do not
believe they would provide these binaries if there was a problem
with them.
Other than that, I am throughly confused as to your point. Maybe I
am missing something.
Thank you for your response,
-T
|
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users
