From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 25 13:34:49 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE0D106566C for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:34:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from services.ipt.ru (services.ipt.ru [194.62.233.110]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CBE8FC19 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:34:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from [85.175.178.176] (helo=moosi) by services.ipt.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1MUhOh-0003ny-R6; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:34:48 +0400 To: Marc Fonvieille References: <20090725013500.GC62402@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090725073805.GA11455@abigail.blackend.org> <20090725115525.GA85767@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090725123749.GA26505@abigail.blackend.org> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:36:00 +0400 In-Reply-To: <20090725123749.GA26505@abigail.blackend.org> (Marc Fonvieille's message of "Sat\, 25 Jul 2009 14\:37\:49 +0200") Message-ID: <46928623@ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: stable@freebsd.org, Luigi Rizzo Subject: Re: status of flash9/flash10 support in RELENG_7 ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:34:49 -0000 Marc Fonvieille writes: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:55:25PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> i see that for 8.x you suggest using fc10, which is also something i >> tried on RELENG_7 but had similar symptoms. Is there any known reason >> why HEAD and RELENG_7 should be different in terms of linux_base support ? > > You should ask this question to bsam (CCed) which is our linux_base > expert. There are two cases here. The first one is resolving issue. I'm not sure if all the needed changes were done to RELENG_7 to let resolving work with linux_base-f10. If any linux port/application that uses resolving (i.e. www/linux-firefox) work at RELENG_7 then an MFC has been done. But that issue should not influence flashplugin. The second one (an absence of some syscalls) will not be resolved at RELENG_7 due to an ABI changes. I'm not aware of linux applications affected though. May be it's print/acroread9 but I'm not sure. As for the original question. I don't use flash so can't be very helpful here. But there are reports at emulation@ ML that both linux-f8-flashplugin10 and linux-f10-flashplugin10 work better then flashplugin[7|9]. -- WBR, bsam