[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Wiki FlashPlayer page



On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Frank Lin PIAT <fpiat@klabs.be> wrote:
> Lukasz,
>
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Frank Lin PIAT <fpiat@klabs.be> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 23:14 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Lukasz Szybalski schrieb:
>> >> > It was there before. Was flashplugin-nonfree removed from debian repository?
>> >>
>> >> See http://www.debian.org/News/2008/20080217. It was removed with 4.0r3
>> >> because of missing security support.  Updated packages are available via
>> >> backports.org.
>> >
>> > Thank you. I've merged that information in the wiki page.
>> > Also, I've removed duplicate content in Manual-Howto.
>
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 17:33 -0600, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
>> Did you verify before you deleted the section form manualhowto?
>> The manual-howto had instruction on how to manually install flash
>> player to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ vs the "flash=player page does
>> not.
>
> As I mentioned in the changelog, I removed that section because it
> duplicate the content of the page FlashPlayer.
> I decided not to merge the content because explaining how to manually
> install something is just the wrong way to do things: I defeats the
> purpose of having a distribution.
> People willing to install or compile stuffs manually should use LFS,
> Gentoo, Windows or whatever.

I agree that installing things manually is a pain but in this case it
seems as one of the options.
First  flash player was in sarge, but didn't work, Then sarge fixed it
year later
Second etch came in with flash player, it worked then got removed
Third, backports  repository is questionable...
so the only way to me seems like a manual install is one of the options.

Above point doesn't matter now. I've merged the changes to Flash-player page.

But I still don't know why flash player was removed...The news says
(see below) but there is noting there. The only explanation (It was
removed with 4.0r3 because of missing security support.) What does
that mean?

Thanks,
Lucas


Reply to: