[CentOS] Flash player beta

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[CentOS] Flash player beta

isdtor
Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html

I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here.

$ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat
[INVALID]
/usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$
1474541270000:$
$ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped
$ strings /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so | grep FlashPlayer_23
FlashPlayer_23_0_0_179_FlashPlayer
$ rpm -q firefox
firefox-45.3.0-1.el6.centos.x86_64
$

I have it working on a different Linux system, not CentOS, with ff 48.0.1.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Flash player beta

Richard-5

> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100
> From: isdtor <[hidden email]>
>
> Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
>
> http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html
>
> I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's
> pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign
> of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here.
>
> $ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat
> [INVALID]
> /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$
> 1474541270000:$
> $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
> /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
> object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped $
> strings /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so | grep
> FlashPlayer_23 FlashPlayer_23_0_0_179_FlashPlayer
> $ rpm -q firefox
> firefox-45.3.0-1.el6.centos.x86_64
> $
>
> I have it working on a different Linux system, not CentOS, with ff
> 48.0.1.
>

I've been using it -- currently ..._179 -- (sparingly) on a -7
machine with the default (firefox-45.3.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64) ff.







_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Flash player beta

Phelps, Matthew
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard <[hidden email]
> wrote:

>
> > Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100
> > From: isdtor <[hidden email]>
> >
> > Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
> >
> > http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html
> >
> > I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's
> > pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign
> > of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here.
> >
> > $ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat
> > [INVALID]
> > /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$
> > 1474541270000:$
> > $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
> > /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
> > object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped $
> > strings /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so | grep
> > FlashPlayer_23 FlashPlayer_23_0_0_179_FlashPlayer
> > $ rpm -q firefox
> > firefox-45.3.0-1.el6.centos.x86_64
> > $
> >
> > I have it working on a different Linux system, not CentOS, with ff
> > 48.0.1.
> >
>
> I've been using it -- currently ..._179 -- (sparingly) on a -7
> machine with the default (firefox-45.3.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64) ff.
>
>
Looks like it's compiled against a later version of glibc:

> ldd libflashplayer.so | grep "not found"
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `./libflashplayer.so'
./libflashplayer.so: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.15'
not found (required by ./libflashplayer.so)
./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found
(required by ./libflashplayer.so)
./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found
(required by ./libflashplayer.so)


--
Matt Phelps
System Administrator, Computation Facility
Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
[hidden email], http://www.cfa.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Flash player beta

Phelps, Matthew
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Phelps, Matthew <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard <lists-centos@listmail.
> innovate.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100
>> > From: isdtor <[hidden email]>
>> >
>> > Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
>> >
>> > http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html
>> >
>> > I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's
>> > pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign
>> > of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here.
>> >
>> > $ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat
>> > [INVALID]
>> > /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$
>> > 1474541270000:$
>> > $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
>> > /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
>> > object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped $
>> > strings /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so | grep
>> > FlashPlayer_23 FlashPlayer_23_0_0_179_FlashPlayer
>> > $ rpm -q firefox
>> > firefox-45.3.0-1.el6.centos.x86_64
>> > $
>> >
>> > I have it working on a different Linux system, not CentOS, with ff
>> > 48.0.1.
>> >
>>
>> I've been using it -- currently ..._179 -- (sparingly) on a -7
>> machine with the default (firefox-45.3.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64) ff.
>>
>>
> Looks like it's compiled against a later version of glibc:
>
> > ldd libflashplayer.so | grep "not found"
> ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for
> `./libflashplayer.so'
> ./libflashplayer.so: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.15'
> not found (required by ./libflashplayer.so)
> ./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found
> (required by ./libflashplayer.so)
> ./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found
> (required by ./libflashplayer.so)--
>

FYI, this has been reported on the Adobe "Flash Player Beta Channel" forum,
and I've +1ed it. I would suggest doing the same to add some more pressure
on them.


https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2209127   (Adobe sign-in required)


--
Matt Phelps
System Administrator, Computation Facility
Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
[hidden email], http://www.cfa.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Flash player beta

m.roth
Phelps, Matthew wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Phelps, Matthew <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard <lists-centos@listmail.
>> innovate.net> wrote:
>>> > Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100
>>> > From: isdtor <[hidden email]>
>>> >
>>> > Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
>>> >
>>> > http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html
<snip>

Speaking of which... not the beta, but the current updated default. I have
one, and only one, radio station I'm streaming 'bout half the day,
weekdays - wqxr.org NYC, and it keeps complaining I need a newer
flashplayer. I click the x in the pink box, it goes away, and everything's
fine - it' just annoying. Doesn't happen anywhere else I'm streaming. Is
this an artifact of it expecting an even newer version, or something
cached on my system, or...?

          mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] Flash player beta

isdtor
In reply to this post by Phelps, Matthew
 
> FYI, this has been reported on the Adobe "Flash Player Beta Channel" forum,
> and I've +1ed it. I would suggest doing the same to add some more pressure
> on them.
>
>
> https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2209127   (Adobe sign-in required)
 
I didn't see anything in the release notes, but the current release is working now on 6.8. Looks like they were listening.

It doesn't change my opinion about luser corporations who think it's ok to build a flash-based management interface for their wares (looking at you, VMware).

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos