Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:22:47 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: status of flash9/flash10 support in RELENG_7 ? Message-ID: <00339944@bb.ipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <20090809160121.GA1621@pollux.local.net> (Harald Weis's message of "Sun\, 9 Aug 2009 18\:01\:21 %2B0200") References: <20090725013500.GC62402@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090725073805.GA11455@abigail.blackend.org> <20090806211401.GB2546@pollux.local.net> <68208453@h30.sp.ipt.ru> <20090809160121.GA1621@pollux.local.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:01:21 +0200 Harald Weis wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 02:52:10AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:14:01 +0200 Harald Weis wrote: > > > > > Portmaster is unable to fetch install_flash_player_9.tar.gz and I > > > > Anyway it's not a portmaster... > Boris, what do you mean exactly? > I use portmaster on 6 machines (since I discovered it in July 2008) > without any problems whatsoever. > Portmaster aborted the linux-flashplugin9 installation because > of the size mismatch, not portmaster's fault, is it? It was a port error not a portmaster fault. If you try to install the port manually you'll see the diagnostic message "size mismatch". > > > cannot find the file manually. Seems to have disappeared from earth. > > > > Something (system, ports, network or else) is broken: > > ----- > > tba% LANG=C date > > Fri Aug 7 02:50:06 MSD 2009 > > tba% fetch http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/current/9/install_flash_player_9.tar.gz > > install_flash_player_9.tar.gz 100% of 2986 kB 1542 kBps > > ----- > Thank you for the URL. Downloaded it while reading your message. > Did not realize the size mismatch then, because too busy elsewhere. Yep, so did I. The URL was a reply to your "the file seems to disappeared from world". After reading your mail I tried it, the file was fetched and I wrote about it. However if you showed an actual diagnostic message from the port my actions would be different. I'd try to find out why the checksum mismatched. With flash player it's hard to find out that a new version was released since they don't hardcode a version into distro file name. > I've just succeeded to install flash9 on firefox3 according to > the Handbook and using the old version. Too unpatient today to > install your patch which does certainly work, will try it on > the next machine. > I've read a long time ago (on this ML I think) that > http://miniusa.com/crm/no_flash.jsp > is an ideal test site. > The install does work like a charm. Magnificent. > There is a huge problem though: > I've got now two vulnerable ports, firefox3 and linux-pango. > The linux-pango case is apparently several months old. > Any idea why the linux world doesn't seem to bother? Well, as for fc4 ports, Fedora Core 4 is unmaintained for a long time and there is no hope to get an updated version. The same seems to happen with f8 port. As for f10 one I'm jast as curious as you. It's still pango-1.22.3-1.fc10. BTW, there is a PR about the case: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/136321 > How to persuade my user now not to use firefox, but w3m? > Impossible. > Anyway, thanks again to everybody, on-list and off-list. -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00339944>