[users] flash-plugin woes

Dag Wieers dag at wieers.com
Thu Nov 13 16:30:43 CET 2008


On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Del Merritt wrote:

> I have been having difficulties with the Adobe Flash plugin for Firefox.
>
> For a while it simply didn't work on my system (CentOS 5.2).  Then last week 
> there was an update to the plugin, and *voila*, I could see Flash content. 
> (nevermind that it ate my system...)
>
> Then a day later, another update was available, and after the upgrade, the 
> player stopped working again (in Firefox, at least).
>
> I try to stick with apt as my package manager, though there was a time I was 
> using yum.  In my /etc/apt/sources.list.d I have two files:
>
>    /etc/apt/sources.list.d/os.list
>    /etc/apt/sources.list.d/rpmforge.list
>
> Their contents, respectively, are:
>
> /etc/apt/sources.list.d/os.list
>
>   # Name: Operating system and updates
>
>    ### Red Hat Enterprise Linux
>    repomd http://mirror.centos.org centos/$(VERSION)/os/$(ARCH)
>    repomd http://mirror.centos.org centos/$(VERSION)/updates/$(ARCH)
>    repomd http://mirror.centos.org centos/$(VERSION)/extras/$(ARCH)
>    repomd http://mirror.centos.org centos/$(VERSION)/fasttrack/$(ARCH)
>    # all other entries commented out
>
> /etc/apt/sources.list.d/rpmforge.list
>
>   #  Name: RPMforge RPM Repository for Red Hat Enterprise 5 - dag
>   #  URL: http://rpmforge.net/
>   # rpm http://apt.sw.be redhat/el$(VERSION)/en/$(ARCH) dag
>    repomd http://apt.sw.be redhat/el$(VERSION)/en/$(ARCH)/dag
>
> Are these "sensible" entries?  Are some of them redundant?  Am I missing some 
> "common" entry?  All of the above?
>
> In my /var/log/apt.log, I have these clues:
>
>    Upgrading apt 0.5.15lorg3.2-3.el5.rf to 0.5.15lorg3.94a-3.el5.rf
>    Upgrading mtr 2:0.74-1.el5.rf to 2:0.75-1.el5.rf
>    Upgrading flash-plugin 10.0.12.36-release to 10.0.12.36-1.el5.rf
>    Upgrading subversion 1.5.3-0.1.el5.rf to 1.5.4-0.1.el5.rf
>    Upgrading wxGTK 2.8.8-1.el5.rf to 2.8.9-1.el5.rf
>    Transaction succeeded at Mon 03 Nov 2008 09:38:47 AM EST
>
> The above was the version of flash-plugin that seemed to work.  Then:
>
>    Upgrading net-snmp-libs 1:5.3.1-24.el5_2.1 to 1:5.3.1-24.el5_2.2
>    Upgrading flash-plugin 10.0.12.36-1.el5.rf to 10.0.12.36-2.el5.rf
>    Upgrading net-snmp-utils 1:5.3.1-24.el5_2.1 to 1:5.3.1-24.el5_2.2
>    Upgrading net-snmp 1:5.3.1-24.el5_2.1 to 1:5.3.1-24.el5_2.2
>    Transaction succeeded at Tue 04 Nov 2008 01:30:19 PM EST
>
> This version - my current one - is not working in Firefox.

Can you first see if you have this link:

     [root at rhun ~]# ls -l /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
     lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Nov  9 00:15 /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so -> /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so

And then do (as root):

     [root at rhun ~]# /usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup

And check if the link is still there ?

I am not sure what happened and I have experienced this myself. However I 
use the scripts from Red Hat so I prefer not to touch them even if they 
fail to do what they should.

     [root at rhun ~]# rpm -qp --scripts /media/Pack/mrepo/rhel5s-i386/supplementary/flash-plugin-9.0.124.0-1.el5.i386.rpm
     postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh):
     if [ "$1" = "1" ]; then
         /usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup install
     fi
     if [ "$1" = "2" ]; then
         /usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup upgrade
     fi
     preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh):
     if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then
         /usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup preun
     fi

     [root at lisse ~]# rpm -qp --scripts /dar/packages/flash-plugin/flash-plugin-10.0.12.36-2.el5.rf.i386.rpm
     postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh):
     if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then
         /usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup install
     elif [ $1 -eq 2 ]; then
         /usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup upgrade
     fi
     preuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh):
     if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then
         /usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup preun
     fi

I guess the problem is that it does an upgrade, while instead it should 
probably do an install coming from the previous flash-plugin that did not 
have this script...

-- 
--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]



More information about the users mailing list