Re: long term solution for flashplugin-nonfree in stable
Le December 20, 2007 06:02:26 am Bart Martens, vous avez écrit :
> On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 23:34 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 12:06, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I would like to know what the stable release managers plan to do
> > >> regarding flashplugin-nonfree in etch.
> > >>
> > >> As I see it, there are three options:
> > >>
> > >> 1. do nothing, keep a broken package in etch
> > >>
> > >> 2. remove the broken package from etch
> > >>
> > >> 3. request another upload, as the version currently in stable-proposed
> > >> updates has broken since it was uploaded (which was before r1)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Additionally I would like to ("officially") ask the volatile team
> > >> about their opinion of including flashplugin-nonfree in
> > >> volatile/contrib. As I read the requierements for volatile, the
> > >> package fully fulfills them. (The package is rock stable and just an
> > >> installer for (the latest) nonfree flash (from adobe) - so it does
> > >> exactly what the users expect.)
> > >
> > > The new Flash is *known* to break konqueror but works as intended on
> > > FireFox, the reason for this is konqueror does not support XEmbed. For
> > > a stable distribution, I'm not sure what the best solution would be.
> >
> > I would go for 2
>
> Yes, I agree about removing broken packages.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/12/msg00088.html
>
> > if there is an updated version in volatile we point
> > people at in the Release Notes.
>
> I'm not convinced that the typical updates of flashplugin-nonfree should
> go via volatile. Updating flashplugin-nonfree from 9.0.48.0.* to
> 9.0.115.0.* involves a new release of closed source software, so it can
> include surprises that are very not welcome in Debian stable. Volatile
> is meant for fast/frequent/safe updates, for example for updating data
> for spam filters or virus scanners. Anything in volatile should be
> (almost?) as safe as stable.
> http://www.debian.org/volatile/
Why did Adobe stop distributing the 9.0.48 tar.gz separately, while continuing
to distribute the RPM?
If nobody knows, did somebody ask them to bring it back?
Reply to: