On 3 June 2011 23:34, Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/03/2011 10:56 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote: >> Alan Bartlett wrote on 06/03/2011 03:32 PM: >>> One comment. I thought linkage of the libjavaplugin_jni.so file is redundant? >> May be superstitious behavior on my part. ÂI saw it recommended >> somewhere to use both and have followed that, but it seems to work fine >> without the libjavaplugin_jni.so link, but the link does not seem to >> cause problems. ÂThat can be deleted if not needed. > I am 100% sure that on x86_64 libnpjp2.so is enough (that's what I use). > On the other arch however, if I am not mistaken (I have no i386 system > handy for testing until Monday) I am accustomed to using > libjavaplugin_jni . Just for you, Wolfy, freshly harvested from a working 32-bit system -- [quote] [ajb@GX1 plugins]$ pwd /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins [ajb@GX1 plugins]$ ls -1 libflashplayer.so libnpjp2.so mplayerplug-in-dvx.so mplayerplug-in-dvx.xpt mplayerplug-in-qt.so mplayerplug-in-qt.xpt mplayerplug-in-rm.so mplayerplug-in-rm.xpt mplayerplug-in.so mplayerplug-in-wmp.so mplayerplug-in-wmp.xpt mplayerplug-in.xpt nsdejavu.so [ajb@GX1 plugins]$ [/quote] Alan. _______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
