On Wednesday 17 November 2010 15:21:55 Magnus Glantz wrote: > On 11/17/2010 09:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Wolff III<bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:57:20 +0100, > >> > >> Hans de Goede<hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> For those who do not know it yet, recent Fedora glibc updates include > >>> an optimized memcpy (which gets used on some processors) which breaks > >>> the 64 bit adobe flash plugin. > >> > >> I saw memcpy / memmove issues affecting squashfs-tools shortly before > >> the F14 alpha. So we had some what of a heads up about the issue over > >> three months ago. It is unfortunate that we didn't catch the flash > >> issue during prerelease testing of F14. If this really is an important > >> critera for releases, maybe we should be having QA testing that flash > >> works. > > > > I will be very, very, disappointed if that gets added as a criteria > > for a Fedora release. It would be no different than making sure the > > nvidia driver works, and we certainly shouldn't be doing that either. > > > > josh > > I can relate to that. I'm all for pure open source, but.. > > I really can't see why it would be a bad thing Fedora would do QA on a > proprietary software that is very important for a majority of the Fedora > users. We do not want to wind up on Adobe's schedule -- the problem is on Adobe's end, not ours, and we cannot even send them a fix. The behavior of memcpy for overlapping ranges is not even defined, so there should be nothing stopping us from using a new implementation of memcpy. The fact that a lot of people use the Flash plugin makes it even more important for *Adobe* to fix what can only be described as a bug in Flash, which is the current reliance on undefined behavior. -- Ben -- Message sent on: Wed Nov 17 15:57:16 EST 2010
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
