Scott Robbins wrote, On 11/16/2008 05:18 PM:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 04:30:33PM +0100, Mads Kiilerich wrote:64 bit machine or Flash 9? http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f10preview/en_US/What_is_the_Latest_on_the_Desktop.html#sn-Web_browsersI just looked at the release notes, and it's really quite unclear."If you are using Flash 10, you do not need libflashsupport anymore asthe usage of ALSA has been fixed in this version."Users of Fedora x86_64 must install the nspluginwrapper.i386 package to enable the 32-bit Adobe Flash Player plug-in in Firefox, and the libflashsupport.i386 package to enable sound from the plugin." ^^^^^^^^So, is it needed or not?
I thought it was clear but hard to read: That libflashsupport isn't "generally" (ie on i386) needed, but on 64-bit it is however still needed.
I proposed a better wording on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471793 .
According to a brief test I made yesterday, it may not be. I removed libflashsupport with yum remove on a 64 bit install and sound was fine.
Interesting. Please try to remove your flash-plugin and nspluginwrappers and make it work again. And then please add a comment to the bug I mentioned.
Oh, by the way: Was it a i386 or x86_64 libflashsupport you uninstalled?I think much of the flash confusion comes because nspluginwrapper runs mozilla-plugin-config on installation. That makes it hard to figure out what is going on; it is not only a question of which packages has been installed, but also in which order.
/Mads
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
