On 06/04/2011 01:42 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote: > 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. I 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. That 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. great, thanks. I've updated the wiki page and left only libnpjp2. _______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
