[gentoo-user] flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem

[gentoo-user] flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem

[Raffaele BELARDI]

I have three users on my ~amd64 gentoo including myself. The two other 
users have identical and very limited rights. For me and one user flash 
in seamonkey works fine, for the other user it is blocked by seamonkey 
being 'insecure', although the seamonkey binary and the flash plugin 
(www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.637) are installed system-wide.

I don't understand why the different behaviour, any suggestions?

thanks,

raffaele

Re: [gentoo-user] flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem

[Dale]

Raffaele BELARDI wrote:
> I have three users on my ~amd64 gentoo including myself. The two other 
> users have identical and very limited rights. For me and one user flash 
> in seamonkey works fine, for the other user it is blocked by seamonkey 
> being 'insecure', although the seamonkey binary and the flash plugin 
> (www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.637) are installed system-wide.
>
> I don't understand why the different behaviour, any suggestions?
>
> thanks,
>
> raffaele


I been having the same problem even after I updated flash.  When I read
your message, it made me think.  I did this:

root@fireball / # equery list *adobe*
 * Searching for *adobe* ...
[IP-] [  ] media-fonts/font-adobe-100dpi-1.0.3:0
[IP-] [  ] media-fonts/font-adobe-utopia-100dpi-1.0.4:0
[IP-] [  ] media-fonts/font-adobe-utopia-type1-1.0.4:0
[I--] [??] www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.635:0
[IP-] [  ] www-plugins/adobe-flash-23.0.0.205:22
root@fireball / #

Ignore the fonts in the list.  It's not related.  Notice how I have two
versions of adobe-flash installed?  I don't think that is normal.  I
manually -C the older version and now youtube and such works fine.  It
now looks like this:


root@fireball / # equery list *adobe*
 * Searching for *adobe* ...
[IP-] [  ] media-fonts/font-adobe-100dpi-1.0.3:0
[IP-] [  ] media-fonts/font-adobe-utopia-100dpi-1.0.4:0
[IP-] [  ] media-fonts/font-adobe-utopia-type1-1.0.4:0
[IP-] [  ] www-plugins/adobe-flash-23.0.0.205:22
root@fireball / #


You may want to see if two versions are installed at the same time.  It
appears that if it is, it tries to use the older version. Don't ask me
how two versions can be installed at the same time tho.  I dunno.  I
don't think it is supposed to do that for this package tho.  The command
I used is this:

emerge -Ca =www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.635

Yours could vary on the version so double check it for yours. 

Hope that helps.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem

[Raffaele BELARDI]

Dale wrote:
> Raffaele BELARDI wrote:
>> I have three users on my ~amd64 gentoo including myself. The two other
>> users have identical and very limited rights. For me and one user flash
>> in seamonkey works fine, for the other user it is blocked by seamonkey
>> being 'insecure', although the seamonkey binary and the flash plugin
>> (www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.637) are installed system-wide.
>>
>> I don't understand why the different behaviour, any suggestions?
>>
>
> Notice how I have two
> versions of adobe-flash installed?  I don't think that is normal.  I
> manually -C the older version and now youtube and such works fine.  It
> now looks like this:
>
> You may want to see if two versions are installed at the same time.  It
> appears that if it is, it tries to use the older version. Don't ask me
> how two versions can be installed at the same time tho.  I dunno.  I
> don't think it is supposed to do that for this package tho.  The command
> I used is this:
>

I understood that the -11 is required for some (NPAPI whateverthatis) 
browsers including Firefox[1]. Actually I recently tried to remove -11 
from another system and mythbrowser stopped displaying flash. Anyway, I 
will try the suggestion with the seamonkey browser.

raffaele

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash

Re: [gentoo-user] flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem

[Dale]

Raffaele BELARDI wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> Raffaele BELARDI wrote:
>>> I have three users on my ~amd64 gentoo including myself. The two other
>>> users have identical and very limited rights. For me and one user flash
>>> in seamonkey works fine, for the other user it is blocked by seamonkey
>>> being 'insecure', although the seamonkey binary and the flash plugin
>>> (www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.637) are installed system-wide.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why the different behaviour, any suggestions?
>>>
>> Notice how I have two
>> versions of adobe-flash installed?  I don't think that is normal.  I
>> manually -C the older version and now youtube and such works fine.  It
>> now looks like this:
>>
>> You may want to see if two versions are installed at the same time.  It
>> appears that if it is, it tries to use the older version. Don't ask me
>> how two versions can be installed at the same time tho.  I dunno.  I
>> don't think it is supposed to do that for this package tho.  The command
>> I used is this:
>>
> I understood that the -11 is required for some (NPAPI whateverthatis) 
> browsers including Firefox[1]. Actually I recently tried to remove -11 
> from another system and mythbrowser stopped displaying flash. Anyway, I 
> will try the suggestion with the seamonkey browser.
>
> raffaele
>
> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash


I have both Seamonkey and Firefox installed so I went to youtube with
them both.  Both played youtube videos fine here with just that last
version installed. 

The reason it had two question marks there, that version is no longer in
the portage tree. Once I uninstalled it, it disappeared completely. 

I hope it will fix your problem.  It seems you asking got me to fix mine
too.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 781 bytes --]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 01:25:14 -0500, Dale wrote:

> [I--] [??] www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.635:0
> [IP-] [  ] www-plugins/adobe-flash-23.0.0.205:22
 
> Don't ask me
> how two versions can be installed at the same time tho.  I dunno.  I
> don't think it is supposed to do that for this package tho.

They are in different slots, notice the slot number at the end of the
atom, slot 0 for the older one and slot 22 for the newer one.

You clearly don't have the older slot in @world or it would have been
updated, the only slot 0 version in the tree is 11.2.202.643 so I would
have expected depclean to remove this if it were no longer needed.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

What do you have when you have six lawyers buried up to their necks in
sand? Not enough sand.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 01:25:14 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> [I--] [??] www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.635:0
>> [IP-] [  ] www-plugins/adobe-flash-23.0.0.205:22
>  
>> Don't ask me
>> how two versions can be installed at the same time tho.  I dunno.  I
>> don't think it is supposed to do that for this package tho.
> They are in different slots, notice the slot number at the end of the
> atom, slot 0 for the older one and slot 22 for the newer one.
>
> You clearly don't have the older slot in @world or it would have been
> updated, the only slot 0 version in the tree is 11.2.202.643 so I would
> have expected depclean to remove this if it were no longer needed.
>
>


That explains it.  I didn't even think about the slots.  I wasn't
expecting it I guess.  I just wonder how long I been using that old
package instead of the new one. 

At least I got rid of that pesky warning on every single video I tried
to watch.  That thing is annoying, which I guess is the point.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem

[David M. Fellows]

>Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 01:25:14 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> [I--] [??] www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.635:0
>>> [IP-] [  ] www-plugins/adobe-flash-23.0.0.205:22
>>  
>>> Don't ask me
>>> how two versions can be installed at the same time tho.  I dunno.  I
>>> don't think it is supposed to do that for this package tho.
>> They are in different slots, notice the slot number at the end of the
>> atom, slot 0 for the older one and slot 22 for the newer one.
>>
>> You clearly don't have the older slot in @world or it would have been
>> updated, the only slot 0 version in the tree is 11.2.202.643 so I would
>> have expected depclean to remove this if it were no longer needed.
>>
>>
>
>
>That explains it.  I didn't even think about the slots.  I wasn't
>expecting it I guess.  I just wonder how long I been using that old
>package instead of the new one. 

To reiterate:
If you are using firefox and friends and relations, eg. seamonkey,
then you *need* to explictly emerge adobe-flash:0 so that it gets added
to your @world set.

If you are using chromium
then you should explicitly emerge adobe-flash:22

Unless you are on amd_64 architcture and want to dig into installing the
freshplayerplugin firefox cannot use and will not recognize the flash
plugin provided by adobe-flash:22.

flash is a soft runtime dependency of firefox. Portage  does not seem to
track the dependencies.

If you originally installed adobe-flash prior to the recent slotting
it will be in your world set as just adobe-flash.
Portage will diligently update this to the latest version as it comes along.
They will be the slot 22 versions. It does not automatically remove the
slot:0.
So firefox will use the aging slot:0 version resulting in the pesky warnings.
If you do a depclean emerge will remove the slot 0 version as unneeded which
leaves a firefox user with no flash.

See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash

Last, but not least, all of the above statements are likely to become
false in the forseeable future due to the fact that Adobe has changed its
mind about how it supports flash on Linux and Gentoo will have to change its
packaging in some way.

>At least I got rid of that pesky warning on every single video I tried
>to watch.  That thing is annoying, which I guess is the point.

Yes, and deservedly so.

DaveF
>
>Dale
>
>:-)  :-) 
>

[gentoo-user] Re: flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem - SOLVED

[Raffaele BELARDI]

Raffaele Belardi wrote:
> I have three users on my ~amd64 gentoo including myself. The two other
> users have identical and very limited rights. For me and one user flash
> in seamonkey works fine, for the other user it is blocked by seamonkey
> being 'insecure', although the seamonkey binary and the flash plugin
> (www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.637) are installed system-wide.
>
> I don't understand why the different behaviour, any suggestions?
>

Solved by removing the user's .mozilla directory.

raffaele

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: flash plugin in seamonkey, user problem - SOLVED

[Dale]

Raffaele BELARDI wrote:
> Raffaele Belardi wrote:
>> I have three users on my ~amd64 gentoo including myself. The two other
>> users have identical and very limited rights. For me and one user flash
>> in seamonkey works fine, for the other user it is blocked by seamonkey
>> being 'insecure', although the seamonkey binary and the flash plugin
>> (www-plugins/adobe-flash-11.2.202.637) are installed system-wide.
>>
>> I don't understand why the different behaviour, any suggestions?
>>
> Solved by removing the user's .mozilla directory.
>
> raffaele

There is a site that lists what files you can remove and not lose all
data.  If you google for it, it's something like mozzilazine or
something.  I use Seamonkey for my email so I'm always careful with
deleting that directory since I'd lose all my emails.  Of course, if you
don't use the email part, it won't matter.  Just may want to save those
bookmarks first. 

Dale

:-)  :-)