Re: Can't get CNN video sound ?? -[SOLVED]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 19:34 -0400, William Case wrote:
> 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.
----
POC is affirming your experiences but like nspluginwrapper, the x86_64
version is mostly worthless without the i386 version too because the
plugins we are discussing are 32 bit.

Perhaps someone should file a bugzilla entry

Craig

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux