You are not logged in.

#1 2010-06-22 06:23:51

justjohn
Member
Registered: 2010-04-23
Posts: 29

Flash hassles

Apparently I have no clue what I'm doing.

Tried installing "flashplugin" from pacman and got nothing in either chromium or firefox. Downloading the tar.gz file from adobe and putting it in the plugins dir resulted in the player showing up for youtube but near instant crash. (no message in terminal, whole browser locks hard and needs to be quit)

Offline

#2 2010-06-22 12:40:04

tarpan
Member
From: Poland
Registered: 2010-06-13
Posts: 3

Re: Flash hassles

It may be too obvious, but did you restart the browser after installing flashplugin with pacman?

Offline

#3 2010-06-22 12:43:35

schen
Member
Registered: 2009-06-06
Posts: 468

Re: Flash hassles

If you are using x86_64 then flash has been dropped from the repos. Try using gnash or something.

http://www.archlinux.org/news/501/

Offline

#4 2010-06-22 13:15:27

nixpunk
Member
Registered: 2009-11-23
Posts: 271

Re: Flash hassles

schen wrote:

If you are using x86_64 then flash has been dropped from the repos. Try using gnash or something.

http://www.archlinux.org/news/501/

Or better yet, use nspluginwrapper-flash from AUR.  Of course, that's again assuming you're using the x86_64 architecture.

Last edited by nixpunk (2010-06-22 13:16:13)

Offline

#5 2010-06-22 13:53:20

DWilliams
Member
From: Everywhere
Registered: 2009-11-22
Posts: 119

Re: Flash hassles

schen wrote:

If you are using x86_64 then flash has been dropped from the repos. Try using gnash or something.

http://www.archlinux.org/news/501/

I saw that news article when it was posted, but as a semi-related question to this thread: Does adobe plan to release 64bit flash again? I mean I can understand if they were just in a rush to get out whatever patches they could because of the security hole, but if they've dropped 64bit Linux support entirely then..well...I like adobe even less than I did before (which isn't very much).

Offline

#6 2010-06-22 14:08:04

hokasch
Member
Registered: 2007-09-23
Posts: 1,461

Re: Flash hassles

Does adobe plan to release 64bit flash again?

Yes. Follow the links in the news piece. When this will happen ("in an upcoming major release of Flash Player"), noone knows though.

Offline

#7 2010-06-22 22:21:11

justjohn
Member
Registered: 2010-04-23
Posts: 29

Re: Flash hassles

If I run uname -a it gives i686, so I don't think I'm running 64 bit. I'm on a centrino duo processor, and wasn't it core 2 before everything went 64 bit?

Offline

#8 2010-06-23 01:25:27

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 7,354

Re: Flash hassles

justjohn wrote:

If I run uname -a it gives i686, so I don't think I'm running 64 bit. I'm on a centrino duo processor, and wasn't it core 2 before everything went 64 bit?

You need to read up a bit more. Just because your truck can carry a fridge doesn't mean that couch in the back is suddenly a fridge.


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#9 2010-06-23 01:57:59

justjohn
Member
Registered: 2010-04-23
Posts: 29

Re: Flash hassles

That's about the most confusing thing I've ever read. Nevertheless, I checked and I'm running a T2300, so it's definitely 32 bit. So, I guess the question is:

How do you normally install flash? Did I do it wrong?

Offline

#10 2010-06-23 02:33:58

sHyLoCk
Member
From: /dev/null
Registered: 2009-06-19
Posts: 1,197

Re: Flash hassles

schen wrote:

If you are using x86_64 then flash has been dropped from the repos. Try using gnash or something.

http://www.archlinux.org/news/501/

Has it been dropped?:/

While we considered pulling the x86_64 package from our repositories, for now we will leave it up to our users to remove it or keep it installed.

Hmmm,apparently it has been dropped!

@justjohn,

32bit package is there, check your mirrorlist

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra … ashplugin/


~ Regards,
sHy
ArchBang: Yet another Distro for Allan to break.
Blog | GIT | Forum (。◕‿◕。)

Offline

#11 2010-06-23 04:52:08

justjohn
Member
Registered: 2010-04-23
Posts: 29

Re: Flash hassles

Thanks, but I have that installed and I have no flash functionality.

Last edited by justjohn (2010-06-23 04:52:45)

Offline

#12 2010-06-23 04:54:39

justjohn
Member
Registered: 2010-04-23
Posts: 29

Re: Flash hassles

I just reinstalled for kicks and got a message:

warning: directory permissions differ on usr/lib/mozilla/
filesystem: 700  package: 755

Does this mean I need to chmod something? Is that my problem? Wouldn't make sense really, since it doesn't work in chromium either.

Last edited by justjohn (2010-06-23 04:55:25)

Offline

#13 2010-06-23 13:50:05

ataraxia
Member
From: Pittsburgh
Registered: 2007-05-06
Posts: 1,553

Re: Flash hassles

justjohn wrote:

I just reinstalled for kicks and got a message:

warning: directory permissions differ on usr/lib/mozilla/
filesystem: 700  package: 755

Does this mean I need to chmod something? Is that my problem? Wouldn't make sense really, since it doesn't work in chromium either.

Probably. Your /usr/lib/mozilla allows only its owner to see inside, and that's probably root. Therefore, when you run as your normal user, your browser can't see in there to load the plugins. chmod it to 755 like the package expects.

Offline

#14 2010-06-24 05:23:08

justjohn
Member
Registered: 2010-04-23
Posts: 29

Re: Flash hassles

Awesome. I'm totally confused how that worked for chromium as well, but it did. Thanks!

Offline

#15 2010-06-24 05:46:00

doorknob60
Member
Registered: 2008-09-29
Posts: 403

Re: Flash hassles

justjohn wrote:

Awesome. I'm totally confused how that worked for chromium as well, but it did. Thanks!

Worked for Chromium because Chromium looks in the same directory as Firefox for plugins, and as your user neither program had access to it.

Offline

#16 2010-06-25 05:00:38

justjohn
Member
Registered: 2010-04-23
Posts: 29

Re: Flash hassles

Ah, see I was expecting firefox to look in the "mozilla" folder, but not chromium. It certainly makes sense given the knowledge that they both check the same dir.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB