Re: adobe flash player in iceweasel does not work anymore in jessie
On Sun 13 Sep 2015 at 01:04:27 +0000, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2015-09-12, Brian <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Sat 12 Sep 2015 at 20:21:40 +0000, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> >> On 2015-09-11, Paul van der Vlis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> > Op 09-09-15 om 23:43 schreef Liam O'Toole:
> >> >>
> >> >> I've been using Flash from deb-multimedia for years without issue (on
> >> >> stable releases, I grant you). I use the following pinning:
> >> >>
> >> >> Package: *
> >> >> Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages
> >> >> Pin-Priority: 100
> >> >
> >> > I don't know what this is doing, do you?
> >> Yes. When a package is available in both debian and deb-multimedia, the
> >> former is always preferred.
> > Except when you use "Flash from deb-multimedia for years".
> I don't follow. Could you please explain?
I was pointing out the apparent contradiction in advising the Debian
archives over the deb-multimedia ones and not taking it yourself. It
was not really that important to mention. :)
> >> > I think you will have many packages on your system what are coming from
> >> > deb-multimedia. Maybe that's what you want, no idea.
> >> Not so. See above.
> >> > I think the people from deb-multimedia are doing their best to make good
> >> > packages. But I think Debian is too complex to mix with a repo like
> >> > deb-multimedia with many packages. Maybe you don't have problems with
> >> > flash, but I think your system is not "rock solid" anymore.
> >> > And what does deb-multimedia bring you for that?
> >> The system is no longer 'rock solid' as soon as you install any
> >> third-party software, be it via flashplayer-mozilla or
> >> flashplugin-nonfree or anything else.
> > Both packages use the same source from Adobe. Why specifically should
> > one be less solid than the other when it comes to watching flash video?
> The point I was trying to make above neither is no more or less 'rock
> solid' than the other.
It still disturbs me a little that Lisi's machine doesn't play 4od with
HAL and flashplugin-nonfree. At
All the ones you mention plus hal-trinity. But so has my husband's computer.
He has only the one libflashplayer.so, the mozilla one.
I, on the other hand, have three:
The second line is ok but the third line should show
as a symlink to /etc/alternatives/flash-mozilla.so.
I think libflashplayer.so in $HOME takes precedence over the alternatives
system. 'ls -l' might indicate which package provides it.