| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bjlockie
Veteran
Joined: 18 Oct 2002
Posts: 1186
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:04 pm Post subject: version of www-plugins/adobe-flash |
 |
|
Why does the Adobe page say | Quote: | | You have version 10,3,162,29 installed |
but emerge says www-plugins/adobe-flash-10.2.159.1_p201011173?
_________________
AMD FX6100 CPU, 16 GiB RAM, OCZ Vertex 3 SSD
ASRock 970 Extreme3 motherboard with S/PDIF audio
Galaxy-NVidia GeForce 8800GT video card, Cyber Power CP550HG USB UPS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the ChangeLog in adobe-flash Portage directory:
| Quote: | 10 Feb 2011; Jim Ramsay <lack@gentoo.org> +adobe-flash-10.2.152.27.ebuild,
+adobe-flash-10.2.152.27_p201011173.ebuild,
-adobe-flash-10.2.161.23_pre20100927.ebuild,
-adobe-flash-10.2.161.23_pre20101117.ebuild, metadata.xml:
Version 10.2.152.27 is released (Security bug #354207)
Note: This also does a bit of a shuffle in where you may expect to see the
64-bit beta "square" release. Though the version number of the 64-bit plugin
is technically 10.3.162.29, this is part of the ebuild named
"adobe-flash-10.2.152.27_p201011173" This is mostly due to the fact that Adobe
does not have a corresponding 32-bit 10.3 beta release at this time, so I have
decided that until they do the main version number will correspond to the
32-bit release and the "patchlevel" will correspond to the date-tag of the
square beta release.
So while this may *look* like a downgrade, it's really an upgrade of the
32-bit plugin and a no-op for the 64-bit plugin. |
The situation is even more confusing now because the official 10.3.x release, now in Portage, is 32-bit-only.
_________________
Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depontius
Advocate
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are you saying that I should mask the new flash release, and go back to what I had before?
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | Are you saying that I should mask the new flash release, and go back to what I had before? |
That's your personal choice -- apparently the 32-bit official 10.3.x works pretty well on amd64 with nspluginwrapper.
I'm using 10.2.x (10.3.x in disguise) on my 64-bit setup.
_________________
Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmpogo
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 3267
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| depontius wrote: | | Are you saying that I should mask the new flash release, and go back to what I had before? |
that's what I did. found no reasons to use 32-bit vi the wrapper, when a notch older 64-bit is working fine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aCOSwt
Bodhisattva
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmpogo wrote: | | depontius wrote: | | Are you saying that I should mask the new flash release, and go back to what I had before? |
that's what I did. found no reasons to use 32-bit vi the wrapper, when a notch older 64-bit is working fine |
There is one major : If you run Opera 11.11. 64 bit flash is broken with this browser.
A second one could be that vdpau is for 32 bits flash only. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmpogo
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 3267
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aCOSwt wrote: | | dmpogo wrote: | | depontius wrote: | | Are you saying that I should mask the new flash release, and go back to what I had before? |
that's what I did. found no reasons to use 32-bit vi the wrapper, when a notch older 64-bit is working fine |
There is one major : If you run Opera 11.11. 64 bit flash is broken with this browser.
A second one could be that vdpau is for 32 bits flash only. |
That could be the reasons, fortunately they are not applicable to me. Not much to be uploaded onto intel chip for vdpau  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aCOSwt
Bodhisattva
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmpogo wrote: | | That could be the reasons, fortunately they are not applicable to me. Not much to be uploaded onto intel chip for vdpau |
You are correct dmpogo ! There are no good reason per se !  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Multimedia
