Hi Craig; On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 15:28 -0700, Craig White wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:59 -0400, William Case wrote: > > Thanks Craig; > > > > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 14:32 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:25 -0400, William Case wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 16:55 -0400, William Case wrote: > > [snip] > > > ---- > > > you must not be checking too hard because > > > http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/9/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/ > > > > > > shows both an i386 and an x86_64 version > > > > Never been there before. Always relied on yum or yumex; neither showed > > the 32 bit libflashsupport. Went to the everything site, clicked on the > > rpm. It downloaded and installed itself -- now I have sound. > ---- > I don't use yumex, never have. > > yum would have installed both i386 & x86_64 versions unless you have > some exclusion in yum.conf - I would look at yumex with suspicion if > that is the tool you used. > hmmmm -- curiouser and curiouser; in first attempt at installing libflashsupport I used yum not yumex. sudo yum install libflashsupport and got only the x86_64 version. After your next post, I su - to root and yum install libflashsupport -- with and without various versions of a 32 and a i386 suffix and got nothing. Finally, on your advice, I browsed to the Everything site dug down to /Packages/ found libflashsupport-000-0.5.svn20070904.i386.rpm clicked on it; got a couple of download type guis I have never seen before. The rpm downloaded and installed the 32 bit package. And, voilá, I now have sound. > yum search libflashsupport should show both versions. > Yes, yum search did show both versions, but apparently didn't tell yum install about it. -- Regards Bill; Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.2 Evo.2.22.2, Emacs 22.2.1 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
