can not find "flashplugin-nonfree"

Bug #205626 reported by Brian Fallik
6
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
apturl (Ubuntu)
New
Undecided
Unassigned
flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned
ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned
ubufox (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: flashplugin-nonfree

While testing the 8.04 Beta, I encountered the following scenario.

Boot CD. Launch firefox3. Hit youtube. ff3 is nice enough to comment that I'm missing the flash plugin, so I click the "Install Missing Plugins..." under the toolbars. I'm presented with an option to choose a plugin, either Adobe (default) or Gnash. I click "Next" (so accepting the default choice of Adobe) and am presented with the unhelpful dialog saying: Can not find "flashplugin-nonfree". Even worse, firefox claims that the plugin *was* installed and that the app needs to be restarted, but in fact neither is true.

If I *first* add multiverse and universe to my software sources and then run through the exercise above, the plugin is installed correctly and firefox successfully displays flash after the required restart.

I believe this bug has 2 parts:

1. Inform the user that they must select multiverse/universe as a source if they plan on installing flashplugin-nonfree, or disable the Adobe choice if the multiverse/universe sources aren't available.

2. Inform the user of failure, not success, if flashplugin-nonfree is not actually installed.

Thanks!

Revision history for this message
Siegfried Gevatter (rainct) wrote :

Thanks for your bug report.

The second issue is already being worked on, see bug #144042.

Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: New → Invalid
Revision history for this message
Brian Fallik (bfallik) wrote : Re: [Bug 205626] Re: can not find "flashplugin-nonfree"

Even with the second issue resolved, there would still be confusion
from the user as to how to process. Is there a recommended approach
to address the first?

Thanks.

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT)
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Thanks for your bug report.
>
> The second issue is already being worked on, see bug #144042.
>
> ** Changed in: flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu)
> Status: New => Invalid
>
>
>
> --
> can not find "flashplugin-nonfree"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/205626
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>

Revision history for this message
Vivek Kapoor (marquivon) wrote :

I also encountered this and was initially baffled. I think it would be a good idea if the user is either informed that the repositories are not enabled, or better, give the user an option to enable the repositories.

Revision history for this message
John Vivirito (gnomefreak) wrote :

As i recall you can choose your repos during installation of Ubuntu. Is this not the case anymore?

Revision history for this message
Brian Fallik (bfallik) wrote :

My original bug report was for booting from the LiveCD and there was
no (obvious) request to set the source repos. Obviously I could
change it manually, but this bug was from the perspective of new user.

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:51 PM, John Vivirito <email address hidden> wrote:
> As i recall you can choose your repos during installation of Ubuntu. Is
> this not the case anymore?
>
>
>
> --
> can not find "flashplugin-nonfree"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/205626
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>

Revision history for this message
John Vivirito (gnomefreak) wrote :

This bug report should be against the live cd (desktop cd) as it really has nothing to do with mozilla in anyway. The same can be said about any package in multiverse repos.

Revision history for this message
Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

Corrected package assignment.

Changed in ubiquity:
status: New → Invalid
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Invalid → Confirmed
status: Confirmed → Invalid
Changed in ubufox:
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Alexander Sack (asac) wrote :

not an ubufox issue. there should be duplicate reported for apturl already.

Changed in ubufox:
status: Confirmed → Invalid
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.