Ubuntu

flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch

Reported by Conan on 2007-12-04
528
This bug affects 9 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
synaptic
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned
flashplugin-nonfree (Baltix)
Undecided
Unassigned
flashplugin-nonfree (Debian)
Fix Released
Unknown
flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu)
High
Arie Kurniawan
Dapper
Undecided
Brandon Holtsclaw
Edgy
Undecided
Unassigned
Feisty
Undecided
Brandon Holtsclaw
Gutsy
High
Unassigned
Hardy
Undecided
Unassigned
Intrepid
Undecided
Unassigned
Jaunty
High
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: flashplugin-nonfree

flashplugin-nonfree package fails to install with the following error:

md5sum mismatch install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz
The Flash plugin is NOT installed.

Could be a new version of flash plugin released for download?

*** IMPORTANT NOTICE ***
The fix for this plugin has been released (let's hope that it will last and adobe won't change the md5sum again)
From the menu:
System -> Administration -> Software sources -> be sure than you have selected the "main", "universe", "restricted" and multiverse".
Then go to the Updates tab -> check "security", "updates" and "proposed"
Now "Close" and "Reload".

after that, do this in the terminal:
sudo apt-get remove --purge flashplugin-nonfree
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree

*** IMPORTANT NOTICE no.2 ***
For all of you that *STILL* complain, which repositories do you use?
Check if your repositories are up to date: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors
Otherwise, try switching to "Download from" -> "Main server" (at system -> administration -> software sources)
Close and Reload.

Then do this in terminal:
sudo apt-get clean
sudo apt-get autoclean
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get remove -y --purge flashplugin-nonfree
sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree

If the above don't work, please post your Ubuntu version release and apt-cache policy flashplugin-nonfree info, it will be easier to track down.

Yes, there is a new flash plugin availabe, Flash Player 9 Update 3, Codename "Moviestar".

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200712/120407adobemoviestar.html

The tar.gz for the linux version no longer contains the .xpt file and the md5sums have changed. I attached a patch for the postinst file.

Philipp Kern (pkern) on 2007-12-05
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
importance: Undecided → Medium
status: New → Confirmed
Serge (serge-de-souza) on 2007-12-05
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
assignee: nobody → motu
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
assignee: motu → imbrandon
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

Yes, I confirm the above post. The new flash update appears to be 9.0.115.0, if I am correct. The package in the Ubuntu repository is for 9.0.48.0.2. Source: http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=tn_15507

Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

Source debdiff
Please check it, as I am a bit new to this (I hope I didn't make a mistake).

Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

Sorry, I did not realize that the status was "Fix Released"

Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Unknown → Fix Released
Gonzhauser (gonzhauser) wrote :

If the md5sums didn't match, could you make the script ask whether the
user would like to install regardless of the md5sum?

This way I could install a new flash version without waiting for you upgrading
the package.

Thanks.

Dara Adib (daradib) on 2007-12-06
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: New → Confirmed
Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

I compared Brandon Holtsclaw's source package (which was uploaded to hardy 18 hours ago- all builds except 64-bit finished) with the modification of the current Gutsy package that I did (debdiff above) and there were no differences (except for debian/changelog). Therefore, there have been no other changes in the new hardy package (which appears to be a second modification on an upstream debian unstable package). I suggest uploading the Hardy source package to a Gutsy repository (such as feisty-updates to start with if not security, etc.).

sputnik (sputnik) wrote :

same problems here. - Would be great if this can be fixed as quick as possible ! :)

This bug is fixed, try to download the new package or wait the update.

http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/f/flashplugin-nonfree/flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_i386.deb

2007/12/7, sputnik <email address hidden>:
>
> same problems here. - Would be great if this can be fixed as quick as
> possible ! :)
>
> --
> flashplugin-nonfree fails to install... new version?
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>

John.Michael.Kane (j.m.k) wrote :

Has this been fixed regarding users of Ubuntu 64bit versions? As currently
the issue of flash not installing is there.

On Dec 7, 2007 11:07 AM, Mathieu Laurent <email address hidden> wrote:

> This bug is fixed, try to download the new package or wait the update.
>
> http://fr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/multiverse/f/flashplugin-
> nonfree/flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_i386.deb
>
> 2007/12/7, sputnik <email address hidden>:
> >
> > same problems here. - Would be great if this can be fixed as quick as
> > possible ! :)
> >
> > --
> > flashplugin-nonfree fails to install... new version?
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
> > You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> > of the bug.
> >
>
> --
> flashplugin-nonfree fails to install... new version?
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug.
>

Brandon's 64-bit flashplugin-nonfree package has still not started building: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flashplugin-nonfree/9.0.115.0ubuntu2/+build/464327

Information on Brandon's package is available here (you can download the source packages from here): https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flashplugin-nonfree/9.0.115.0ubuntu2

If you want to download a binary package, do so here (only 32-bit has been built): http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10761023/flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_i386.deb

64-bit users currently must compile their own packages using the source packages available at the information on the package (second link).

Nicolas Diogo (nicolasdiogo) wrote :

hello,

would you guys be so kind to give the 64bit users some idea around time to see this package fixed?

many thanks

Bradford Law (bradford-law) wrote :

I would also like to request that the 64 package build be expedited.

B

dogafro (destlund) wrote :

I tried to build it myself but I'm in over my head. I get the following errors:

Now running lintian...
E: flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_amd64.changes: bad-ubuntu-distribution-in-changes-file hardy
W: flashplugin-nonfree source: unknown-architecture lpia
E: flashplugin-nonfree: prerm-calls-updaterc.d flashplugin-nonfree
E: flashplugin-nonfree: prerm-calls-updaterc.d flashplugin-nonfree
E: flashplugin-nonfree: prerm-calls-updaterc.d flashplugin-nonfree

I could fix the first and second errors with a little work, but the rest don't make any sense to me at all. Any 64 bit devs around?

Matt Darcy (matt-darcy) wrote :

Hi

could someone clarify the status of this bug please.

The bug is marked as fixed released, but in the stable gutsy repo's the checksum is still wrong.

Is this fix released to the proposed repos ? the development repo's ?

I would be greatful of clarification.

thanks.

Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

I am going to try building the source package on Gutsy 64-bit. It should work, as the package created from the debdiff I made compiled.

Matt- this bug is marked as "Fix Released" because the source package has been uploaded to Hardy (not Gutsy 7.10). The 32-bit package has been built on the Hardy repository, but the 64-bit package has not yet been built. For Gutsy, the bug has been marked as Confirmed, because the source package has still not been uploaded to a Gutsy repository. Read the comment I wrote before on December 6th requesting that the source package be uploaded to a Gutsy 7.10 repository.

If you want an immediate fix, then just download this package (32-bit only) and install it (it is identical to the current package in Hardy): http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10761023/flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_i386.deb

Alternatively, you can build a binary package from this source package (this is currently necessary if you have 64-bit): http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flashplugin-nonfree/9.0.115.0ubuntu2

Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

I compiled a 64-bit package (on Gutsy 7.10) successfully using the Brandon Holtsclaw's source package (now in Hardy). It is attached, but I recommend building it yourself (read previous comment) since you should not install a "random" package off the internet.

Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

In case you don't know how to compile the package yourself (for 64-bit), I am giving you instructions via the command line as these are more straightforward (do these in order, one step at a time).

wget http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10756602/flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2.tar.gz
tar -zxvf flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2.tar.gz
cd flashplugin-nonfree-9.0.115.0ubuntu2
dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot

The first line downloads the tar.gz file. The second file extracts the downloaded file. The third line changes into the directory created by the extracted file. The fourth line builds a binary package.

Now if you go to Places -> Home you should see a file flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_amd64.deb. Double-click the file and install the package.

The attached package in the above comment is the same as what you created using the above instructions. I recommend that you build the packages yourself, however, because you should exercise caution when downloading a random package (the source package is trusted as it is from an included Hardy source package) since that lets anything be executed that the creator of the package made (and possibly malicious).

Ramos (ramos-a-f) wrote :

I followed the four steps that you adiviced but at the fourth step I got:

alexandre@alexandre-desktop:~/flashplugin-nonfree-9.0.115.0ubuntu2$ dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakerroot
dpkg-buildpackage: source package is flashplugin-nonfree
dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 9.0.115.0ubuntu2
dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Brandon Holtsclaw <email address hidden>
dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64
dpkg-buildpackage: source version without epoch 9.0.115.0ubuntu2
dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: debhelper (>= 5) cdbs
dpkg-buildpackage: Build dependencies/conflicts unsatisfied; aborting.
dpkg-buildpackage: (Use -d flag to override.)

Do you have any suggestion on how to fix this? I am a beginner on linux.

thanks,
Alexandre

Hello, I tried to compile the source and I can't get it to work. I'm using Gusty, and it gives me this in Terminal:

h@h-desktop:~/flashplugin-nonfree-9.0.115.0ubuntu2$ dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot
The program 'dpkg-buildpackage' can be found in the following packages:
 * dpkg-dev
 * dpkg-cross
Try: sudo apt-get install <selected package>
bash: dpkg-buildpackage: command not found

Sorry if there is something wrong in there, but I'm new to linux so please be nice.

battles33 (open-the-third-eye) wrote :

Mr. Cyrus Jones, thank you. i've been trying to figure this stuff out for a couple days after having to reinstall ubuntu because something's been messed up with my mouse (cursor would momemtarily freeze when i hit a key on the keyboard)
anyway
i had the same problem as the above posts
for the people above me, it's a good idea to read the comments spit out by the commands you type into the terminal
in this case, the very last line solves the puzzle
"dpkg-buildpackage: (Use -d flag to override.)"
so, Cyrus' last command will now be modified to become "dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot -d"
i was also having problems with the -rfakeroot, so i simply took that out and used sudo
so my final command was "sudo dpkg-buildpackage -b -d"

i hit one more bump, something wasn't installed (sorry, i closed that terminal window so i can't copy and paste the problem)
the solution to this one final problem was to download cdbs, found here http://packages.debian.org/sarge/cdbs

download that, run the command "sudo dpkg-buildpackage -b -d" and you should hopefully finally have flash installed

Jan Claeys (janc) wrote :

@battles33: You shouldn't use Debian's CDBS package, it could break on your Ubuntu system. Use ubuntu's CDDB package instead.

Also, @everyone, Brandon more or less promised me to ask for permission to upload this fixed package to gutsy-updates. All non-security-related updates to a released distro-version need special permission, but most developers on IRC agreed that this was a good case for such an exception.

So, don't despair... ;-)

Thanks for the update Jan, and for the fix.

On Dec 9, 2007 6:22 AM, Jan Claeys <email address hidden> wrote:

> @battles33: You shouldn't use Debian's CDBS package, it could break on
> your Ubuntu system. Use ubuntu's CDDB package instead.
>
> Also, @everyone, Brandon more or less promised me to ask for permission
> to upload this fixed package to gutsy-updates. All non-security-related
> updates to a released distro-version need special permission, but most
> developers on IRC agreed that this was a good case for such an
> exception.
>
> So, don't despair... ;-)
>
> --
> flashplugin-nonfree fails to install... new version?
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug.
>

Here is the tail of my output from 'sudo dpkg-buildpackage -b -d' . Still can't get this to work. I am sure I must be missing something simple... :

dh_builddeb -pflashplugin-nonfree
warning, `debian/flashplugin-nonfree/DEBIAN/control' contains user-defined field `Npp-Applications'
warning, `debian/flashplugin-nonfree/DEBIAN/control' contains user-defined field `Npp-Mimetype'
warning, `debian/flashplugin-nonfree/DEBIAN/control' contains user-defined field `Npp-Name'
warning, `debian/flashplugin-nonfree/DEBIAN/control' contains user-defined field `Original-Maintainer'
dpkg-deb: building package `flashplugin-nonfree' in `../flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_amd64.deb'.
dpkg-deb: ignoring 4 warnings about the control file(s)
 dpkg-genchanges -b
dpkg-genchanges: warning: unknown information field 'Xb-Npp-Mimetype' in input data in package's section of control info file
dpkg-genchanges: warning: unknown information field 'Xb-Npp-Applications' in input data in package's section of control info file
dpkg-genchanges: warning: unknown information field 'Xb-Npp-Name' in input data in package's section of control info file
dpkg-genchanges: binary-only upload - not including any source code
 signfile flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_amd64.changes
gpg: skipped "Brandon Holtsclaw <email address hidden>": secret key not available
gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: secret key not available

dpkg-buildpackage: binary only upload (no source included)
(WARNING: Failed to sign .changes file)

Ramos (ramos-a-f) wrote :

I tried the command "sudo dpkg-buildpackage -b -d ", as suggested by battles33, and after downloaded and installed cddb using synaptic, Jan Claeys. I got:

alexandre@alexandre-desktop:~/flashplugin-nonfree-9.0.115.0ubuntu2$ sudo dpkg-buildpackage -b -d
dpkg-buildpackage: source package is flashplugin-nonfree
dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 9.0.115.0ubuntu2
dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Brandon Holtsclaw <email address hidden>
dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64
dpkg-buildpackage: source version without epoch 9.0.115.0ubuntu2
 debian/rules clean
test -x debian/rules
test "`id -u`" = 0
dh_clean
make: dh_clean: Command not found
make: *** [clean] Error 127

Anyone knows what is going on and how to fix?
Thanks,
Ramos

I can get you to where I am, which is farther than you are, but still short of the goal:

sudo apt-get install build-essential
sudo apt-get install devscripts
sudo apt-get install dh-buildinfo

Then, retry sudo dpkg-buildpackage -b -d, and you'll have the same error I do... ;-)

Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

Instead of adding the -d option to dpkg-buildpackage you can do the following command before anything else (this installs the required dependencies).

sudo apt-get build-dep flashplugin-nonfree

That downloads and installs all of the dependencies for the flash plugin (including development dependencies).

So the corrected instructions would be:

sudo apt-get build-dep flashplugin-nonfree
wget http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10756602/flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2.tar.gz
tar -zxvf flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2.tar.gz
cd flashplugin-nonfree-9.0.115.0ubuntu2
dpkg-buildpackage -b -rfakeroot

Of course, you could just install the compiled package I built http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10804892/flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_amd64.deb (attached to my December 8th comment), but I just said that you might not consider it good practice to install packages from an untrusted source (especially referring to the Ubuntu Forums malicious code incident)- not that you don't trust me.

Ramos, I believe your issue is that you don't have the appropriate compiling tools installed. The modified instructions I gave should fix your problem, if not, install the package build-essential in Synaptic or via command line (sudo apt-get install build-essential).

Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

Joe- you don't have a problem. Everything is fine. Just install the binary package you generated (probably in your home directory). You can ignore the warnings. And you don't want a source package (only a binary for installation). You also don't need any GPG keys, as you don't need to verify that Brandon's package is his and sign the package. Everyone will have exactly the same message as you if they do the same instructions (and assuming they haven't added Brandon's GPG keys- which is pointless for building a binary package).

Jan Claeys (janc) wrote :

Folks, this is not a help forum but a bug tracker. I would appreciate it if people could move the package building tutorials to the Ubuntu Forums or such a place. You're flooding the developers with irrelevant mail messages...

(Or just wait until the update goes into the Gutsy repositories of course.)

Cyrus Jones

The link you posted (http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10804892/flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.115.0ubuntu2_amd64.deb) worked beautifully. I tried all the other command line fixes and have been at this for nearly 3 hours now at different forums. I know I shouldn't be installing random stuff, but when you start getting desperate and haven't put anything on you system that you don't really care about, then why not take a chance with a stranger I guess....

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for solving my issue.

Dara Adib (daradib) wrote :

Apologies for the developer irrelevant bug comments. As they really are better suited to a forum, I ask that people go to http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3923465 for non-developer related information and questions/comments on this bug. Thanks Jan Claeys.

Tom Shaw (firephoto) wrote :

The version 9.0.115 of the flash plugin won't work with konqueror because it requires XEmbed. 9.0.48 is the last version that will work which is the default version for gutsy (which this bug was about) but the fix here seems to be to update to 115 but that still will leave Kubuntu broken.

sputnik (sputnik) wrote :

btw. updating to version 9.0.115 of flash will also affect the package opera. The 9.50 Beta 2 of Opera can handle this.

Ramos (ramos-a-f) wrote :

Jan Claeys, apologies, I didn't know this was a developers' forum. Cyrus, thank you for help. Anyway, flash is not working yet. I'm going to a ubuntu forum.

Matt Darcy (matt-darcy) wrote :

Can we please drop the how to compile and trouble shooting personal compiles from this bug report.

there is an official fix made, has the package been distributed to the repo's yet ? it appears not for the 32bit gutsy repo's.

Could we get an official response on the already created fix package rather than trying to teach each other how to compile packages that are already fixed.

Matt it's my understanding that currently users of Ubuntu 64bit are still
affected, and are currently waiting for the package in question to be built,
and uploaded to repos for Gutsy 7.10. This issue may still affect
32bit 7.10users as well, however. I'm not sure on that.

On Dec 11, 2007 8:34 AM, Matt Darcy <email address hidden> wrote:

> Can we please drop the how to compile and trouble shooting personal
> compiles from this bug report.
>
> there is an official fix made, has the package been distributed to the
> repo's yet ? it appears not for the 32bit gutsy repo's.
>
> Could we get an official response on the already created fix package
> rather than trying to teach each other how to compile packages that are
> already fixed.
>
> --
> flashplugin-nonfree fails to install... new version?
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug.
>

The build works and the package installs on 64 bit Gutsy, but only works on the youtube website. It does not seem to work on any other flash intensive websites such as disney.com, nick.com, etc.

Adobe updated the flash plugin. Due to their license, we must
download and install their file.
This breaks the Gutsy package.
We have TWO choices:

1) Don't update the package and have a broken package that no-one can
use (aside from the more technically minded)
2) Update the package and have a package that everyone can use, except
for konqueror users.

It seems that because we have no control over Adobe, the ball is in
konqueror's court and they need to patch. (If their users plan on
using flash)

A third solution, if possible, would be to see if Adobe keeps older
versions of flash available for download and update the package to
pull that.

-Chris

On Dec 10, 2007 8:36 PM, Tom Shaw <email address hidden> wrote:
> The version 9.0.115 of the flash plugin won't work with konqueror
> because it requires XEmbed. 9.0.48 is the last version that will work
> which is the default version for gutsy (which this bug was about) but
> the fix here seems to be to update to 115 but that still will leave
> Kubuntu broken.
>
> --
> flashplugin-nonfree fails to install... new version?
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of a duplicate bug.
>

Vinay Augustine (v) wrote :

> A third solution, if possible, would be to see if Adobe keeps older
> versions of flash available for download and update the package to
> pull that.
>

This would be ideal. At the very least, though, it seems like the
package does the exact wrong thing: on my system, I installed it from
firefox, and the package installed, and silently failed. Removing it
and installing it from the command line told me that flash didn't
install (because of the bad md5 sum), but the .deb *did* install. If
the md5 fails, the whole install should fail.

-V

Gonzhauser (gonzhauser) wrote :

Vinay Augustine schrieb:
>> A third solution, if possible, would be to see if Adobe keeps older
>> versions of flash available for download and update the package to
>> pull that.
>>
>
> This would be ideal. At the very least, though, it seems like the
> package does the exact wrong thing: on my system, I installed it from
> firefox, and the package installed, and silently failed. Removing it
> and installing it from the command line told me that flash didn't
> install (because of the bad md5 sum), but the .deb *did* install. If
> the md5 fails, the whole install should fail.

I sent a patch a while ago to ask the user whether he wants to still
install even if md5sums did not match. Is this acceptable and why not, why?
Here is the patch again.

g

selivanow (selivanow) wrote :

On Dec 11, 2007 11:54 AM, Gonzhauser <email address hidden> wrote:
> Vinay Augustine schrieb:
>
> I sent a patch a while ago to ask the user whether he wants to still
> install even if md5sums did not match. Is this acceptable and why not, why?
> Here is the patch again.
>
>
I believe that would be ok if:

1) The user was notified when using the non-console based managers
2) Users were make aware that it may break things, such as konqueror
(as T. Shaw pointed out.)

Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: New → Confirmed
status: New → Confirmed
status: New → Confirmed
Jonathan Riddell (jr) on 2007-12-12
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
assignee: nobody → imbrandon
status: Fix Committed → Confirmed
assignee: nobody → imbrandon
status: Fix Committed → Confirmed
assignee: nobody → imbrandon
status: Fix Committed → Confirmed
assignee: nobody → imbrandon
status: Fix Committed → Confirmed
Nanley Chery (nanoman) on 2008-01-20
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Fix Released → Confirmed
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
importance: Medium → High
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
importance: Undecided → High
milestone: none → gutsy-updates
Changed in synaptic:
status: New → Invalid
Martin Pitt (pitti) on 2008-02-01
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
Martin Pitt (pitti) on 2008-02-01
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
description: updated
Martin Pitt (pitti) on 2008-02-06
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
description: updated
Kjell Braden (afflux) on 2008-02-07
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Fix Released → Confirmed
Jonathan Riddell (jr) on 2008-02-08
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Fix Released → Confirmed
status: Fix Released → Confirmed
LaserJock (laserjock) on 2008-04-09
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
status: Confirmed → In Progress
LaserJock (laserjock) on 2008-04-09
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: In Progress → Fix Committed
Martin Pitt (pitti) on 2008-04-10
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
assignee: imbrandon → nobody
status: Confirmed → Won't Fix
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Unknown → Fix Released
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Fix Released → Confirmed
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Confirmed → Won't Fix
257 comments hidden view all 337 comments
Sebastian Kapfer (caci) wrote :

> It is perfectly easy to install the Adobe 64-bit plugin directly.

Of course this is not the point of having it packaged :-)

Since Adobe offers .deb packages directly, why can't they get set up as an apt source and use a signed package instead of this download mechanism? Wouldn't that fix this issue once and for all instead of having to always have a period where users are broken whenever Adobe bumps a version?

Sebastian Kapfer (caci) wrote :

Well, the issue probably is quality control :-)

Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

> > It is perfectly easy to install the Adobe 64-bit plugin directly.
> Of course this is not the point of having it packaged :-)

No. Having the 64-bit version packaged is Bug 299146. :-)

Either way, anyone wanting to use the Ubuntu package is going to have to put up with the periodic breakage. So my point is that they can either wait for the package to go through the update process, or install it themselves. The latter being trivial in the 64-bit case, since there are no 32-bit libraries and wrapper to deal with.

None of this really does anything for the guy who just bought his Ubuntu preinstalled laptop/desktop hoping to get into Linux. Focus should be on usability of future flash updates from an end user standpoint, just make the backend logic work. When faced with end users struggling or breaking a packaging policy you should be thinking of your higher interest the end user.

-----Original Message-----
From: <email address hidden> [mailto:<email address hidden>] On Behalf Of Noel J. Bergman
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:23 AM
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: [Bug 173890] Re: flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch

> > It is perfectly easy to install the Adobe 64-bit plugin directly.
> Of course this is not the point of having it packaged :-)

No. Having the 64-bit version packaged is Bug 299146. :-)

Either way, anyone wanting to use the Ubuntu package is going to have to
put up with the periodic breakage. So my point is that they can either
wait for the package to go through the update process, or install it
themselves. The latter being trivial in the 64-bit case, since there
are no 32-bit libraries and wrapper to deal with.

--
flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of the bug.

Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

David,

> Focus should be on usability of future flash updates from an end user standpoint

I've already made those arguments, as have others. You can see those comments above if you read the entire set of comments.

Since the option that a user can unilaterally take *today* to work around this problem is to manually install Flash, I am simply pointing out that installing the 64-bit Flash means simply downloading Flash from Adobe, opening it with the Archive Manager, and copying a single file into a specific directory.

And how do you suggest this focus on backend logic and focus on user ease of getting flash is done ? The problem is not ubuntu, or linux in general, how can package maintainers be expected to be up to date real time with Adobe changing the file and it's location with no notice. Instead of chasing this up with ubuntu direct your focus on adobe,

Matt

-----Original Message-----

From: "David Portwood" <email address hidden>
Sent: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:58:21 -0000
To: <email address hidden>
Received: 18-Dec-2008 19:07:24 +0000
Subject: RE: [Bug 173890] Re: flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch

None of this really does anything for the guy who just bought his Ubuntu
preinstalled laptop/desktop hoping to get into Linux. Focus should be on
usability of future flash updates from an end user standpoint, just make
the backend logic work. When faced with end users struggling or
breaking a packaging policy you should be thinking of your higher
interest the end user.

-----Original Message-----
From: <email address hidden> [mailto:<email address hidden>] On Behalf Of Noel J. Bergman
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:23 AM
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: [Bug 173890] Re: flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch

> > It is perfectly easy to install the Adobe 64-bit plugin directly.
> Of course this is not the point of having it packaged :-)

No. Having the 64-bit version packaged is Bug 299146. :-)

Either way, anyone wanting to use the Ubuntu package is going to have to
put up with the periodic breakage. So my point is that they can either
wait for the package to go through the update process, or install it
themselves. The latter being trivial in the 64-bit case, since there
are no 32-bit libraries and wrapper to deal with.

--
flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of the bug.

--
flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of a duplicate bug.

Matt Darcy (matt-darcy) wrote :

This is not the case,

The 64bit package is still pre release and has caused problems for the majority of in experienced users installing and trying to use it. Just allow ubuntu to update the package, while long term collaberation and a solution is found.

-----Original Message-----

From: "Noel J. Bergman" <email address hidden>
Sent: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:56:26 -0000
To: <email address hidden>
Received: 18-Dec-2008 20:17:26 +0000
Subject: [Bug 173890] Re: flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch

David,

> Focus should be on usability of future flash updates from an end user
standpoint

I've already made those arguments, as have others. You can see those
comments above if you read the entire set of comments.

Since the option that a user can unilaterally take *today* to work
around this problem is to manually install Flash, I am simply pointing
out that installing the 64-bit Flash means simply downloading Flash from
Adobe, opening it with the Archive Manager, and copying a single file
into a specific directory.

--
flashplugin-nonfree fails to install due to md5sum mismatch
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/173890
You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
of a duplicate bug.

Kees Cook (kees) on 2008-12-19
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
assignee: nobody → kees
status: New → Fix Released
assignee: imbrandon → kees
assignee: nobody → kees
status: New → Fix Released

The worst part here is that the package is marked as installed altough the installation fails...

Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

Matt,

Waiting is the first option. For those who don't want to wait, there is the DIY approach. I've done the 64-bit install multiple times (different systems) with no problems. YMMV.

Long-term solutions are either to accept the periodic breakage, for Ubuntu to relax the checks (which they don't want to do) or for Adobe to maintain their own repository for Ubuntu, which they already do for Fedora. There have been many requests to Adobe to do so, although I am not aware of a positive response from the company.

But *today* the choices are either wait for the updated package or install manually.

Leon Nardella (leon.nardella) wrote :

It seems Adobe already has a repository for Ubuntu:
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com/2008/12/adobe-flash-avoiding-md5-errors.html

Summing up:
Enable "deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu intrepid partner" and install adobe-flashplugin

Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

> It seems Adobe already has a repository for Ubuntu

That's good news, and about time. :-) I knew that Adobe was already building the .deb, but hadn't seen that they were in the third party repository. Hopefully they'll get acrobat reader into there, too, although distribution of that through medibuntu has been less problematic.

So what happens to flashplugin-nonfree? Should it be removed completely?

I hate to be a nag about the user experience, but how will end users use the intrepid partner repository pasted above? Will Ubuntu updater have an option to select partner packages? Will the OS installer allow you to select partner packages. I'm pretty sure every end user wants the adobe-flashplugin installed, so how will they easily get it without modifying apt sources somehow?

Greg Taylor (gtaylor) wrote :

Yeah, my mom/grandma would have no idea how to edit the sources. This is a critical enough component to where it needs to be very very simple to get. Things like this go directly towards bug #1. It needs to come as close to "just working" as possible to have a shot at the end goal.

Kees Cook (kees) on 2008-12-19
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
assignee: kees → nobody
assignee: kees → nobody
assignee: kees → nobody
Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

> So what happens to flashplugin-nonfree? Should it be removed completely?

Perhaps. Or turned into a package that tells you how, or helps, to enable the other one? Other options?

> how will end users use the intrepid partner repository pasted above?

System->Administration->Software Sources->Third Party. Enable the "partner" choices.

> Perhaps. Or turned into a package that tells you how, or helps, to enable the other one? Other options?

Maybe temporarily until the next release when it is removed completely? It wouldn't make sense to keep the package long-term.

>> how will end users use the intrepid partner repository pasted above?
>
>System->Administration->Software Sources->Third Party. Enable the "partner" choices.

To paraphrase Greg's point, that will not work for his mom/grandma. This sounds like a small issue, but things like this are what keep Ubuntu as more of a 'geek' option. On Windows, you click 'Get Adobe Flash Player' and it installs and just works. On Linux, you get a combo box which lets you select .tar.gz, .deb, etc and it downloads those files. You're now forced to know what they are in the first place, how to use archives or how to use dpkg to install a deb file. Or, you have to know about adobe-flashplugin, know how to enable the 'partner' repo and know how to install it. There is nothing connecting the ubiquitous 'Get Adobe Flash Player' icon with installing the package. Any technical issues which prevent this from occurring (e.g. browser support, the 'partner' repo isn't enabled by default) need to be resolved for the overall Ubuntu user experience to be successful.

Ideal situation:

Ubuntu user goes to Adobe.com, clicks on 'Get Adobe Flash Player'. They are presented with a dialog saying 'To install the Adobe flash player, the adobe-flashplugin package needs to be installed.' with a button to click on to spawn the installation of the package in the update manager.

Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

> To paraphrase Greg's point, that will not work for his mom/grandma.
> On Windows, you click 'Get Adobe Flash Player'
> On Linux, you [are] forced to know what [your options are and how to exercise them]

As I've said before, you guys are preaching to the choir. I was just observing what could be done today. At this point, I believe that a fixed package was posted by Kees, rendering this fixed until the next time. Bug 1 issues should probably be addressed elsewhere, e.g., there.

Alexander Sack (asac) wrote :

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Waiting is the first option. For those who don't want to wait, there is
> the DIY approach. I've done the 64-bit install multiple times
> (different systems) with no problems. YMMV.
>
> Long-term solutions are either to accept the periodic breakage, for
> Ubuntu to relax the checks (which they don't want to do) or for Adobe to
> maintain their own repository for Ubuntu, which they already do for
> Fedora. There have been many requests to Adobe to do so, although I am
> not aware of a positive response from the company.
>
> But *today* the choices are either wait for the updated package or
> install manually.
>
>
we have the binaries now in a canonical archive and will fix the
installer package to pull stuff from there. In this way no transitional
breakage will happen anymore.

Jim (jwyllie83) wrote :

Alexander Sack wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Waiting is the first option. For those who don't want to wait, there is
>> the DIY approach. I've done the 64-bit install multiple times
>> (different systems) with no problems. YMMV.
>>
>> Long-term solutions are either to accept the periodic breakage, for
>> Ubuntu to relax the checks (which they don't want to do) or for Adobe to
>> maintain their own repository for Ubuntu, which they already do for
>> Fedora. There have been many requests to Adobe to do so, although I am
>> not aware of a positive response from the company.
>>
>> But *today* the choices are either wait for the updated package or
>> install manually.
>>
>>
>>
> we have the binaries now in a canonical archive and will fix the
> installer package to pull stuff from there. In this way no transitional
> breakage will happen anymore.
>
Can you do that? I know the problem before was that the Adobe licensing
agreement didn't allow redistribution. Did that change?

If you can, then this is clearly the best solution for the time being.

Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

Jim,

This is a change. Adobe, itself, will be maintaining the package in the partners repository.

Savvas Radevic (medigeek) wrote :

> Jim,
>
> This is a change. Adobe, itself, will be maintaining the package in the
> partners repository.

When can we expect it to be fully available in the partners repository?

Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

> When can we expect it to be fully available in the partners repository?

See http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/

Although I don't see Jaunty and/or the x86_64 bit version.

Leon Nardella (leon.nardella) wrote :

I think the 64-bit version is still alpha/beta, isn't it?

Noel J. Bergman (noeljb) wrote :

> the 64-bit version is still alpha/beta, isn't it?

Yes, but that ought to be the default for Jaunty, nonetheless. :-)

FWIW, I find it to be more stable than the nspluginwrapper version. For example, I find the live score centre at SkySports to be far more reliable with the 64 bit alpha than the 32 bit released version.

> to be far more reliable with the 64 bit alpha than the 32 bit released version.

I agree. The 32-bit wrapper version didn't work at all on my 8.10 install. If a movie started at all it would freeze after the first few seconds. After installing the 64-bit version everything has worked perfectly. Hopefully it will be release quality soon so there will be a proper package for it.

Alexander Sack (asac) wrote :

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> the 64-bit version is still alpha/beta, isn't it?
>>
>
> Yes, but that ought to be the default for Jaunty, nonetheless. :-)
>
> FWIW, I find it to be more stable than the nspluginwrapper version. For
> example, I find the live score centre at SkySports to be far more
> reliable with the 64 bit alpha than the 32 bit released version.
>
>
try with the latest nspluginwrapper from jaunty should work quiet great.
we will eventually push that to intrepid (just need to fix postinst to
auto-recreate the wrappers).

jaunty will not have the 64-bit version if there is no final release.

Jacob Godserv (fun2program8) wrote :

I'm afraid I'm going to have to re-open this bug, since flashplugin-nonfree is giving me an md5sum error again. I have a feeling that other versions of Ubuntu are going to have the same problem, but I'll let others who actually have those installed confirm those versions.

Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: Fix Released → New

Jacob, please post the output of this command:

apt-cache policy flashplugin-nonfree

Iain (iain-beeston) wrote :

I'm also getting this error, on Hardy netbook remix. The output from the command above is (for me):

flashplugin-nonfree:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 9.0.152.0ubuntu0netbook1
  Version table:
     9.0.152.0ubuntu0netbook1 0
        500 http://netbook-remix.archive.canonical.com hardy-netbook-remix/multiverse Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     9.0.124.0ubuntu2 0
        500 http://netbook-remix.archive.canonical.com hardy/multiverse Packages

Scott Talbert (swt-techie) wrote :

Adobe just released a new version to correct some security issues. New packages will be out soon to update the md5sums. Please see this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/334134.

Jacob Godserv (fun2program8) wrote :

Bug #334134 fixed my problem. Thanks guys!

In the future, would re-opening this bug be the best way to notify you, or should I create a new bug report?

Jacob Godserv (fun2program8) wrote :

Forgot to revert my previous changes. Done now.

Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: New → Fix Released
Akhona (15878325-sun) wrote :

E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure -a' to correct the problem.
when i run 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' it keeps on trying but can't download. my internet is working, i even downloaded the .deb file from adobe but could not install it.

prabhu (prabhuraja5) on 2009-08-18
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → prabhu (prabhuraja5)
kory (korybauer) on 2009-10-03
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu Gutsy):
assignee: Brandon Holtsclaw (imbrandon) → nobody
assignee: nobody → kory (korybauer)
John Vivirito (gnomefreak) wrote :

Please do not assign yourself to bugs you dont plan on fixing and closed bugs should never been re-assigned. it looks like you are doing it for karma and it doesnt give you any really

John,

I've not assigned myself any bugs,

Matt

John Vivirito wrote:
> Please do not assign yourself to bugs you dont plan on fixing and closed
> bugs should never been re-assigned. it looks like you are doing it for
> karma and it doesnt give you any really
>

John Vivirito (gnomefreak) wrote :

Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu Gutsy):
assignee: nobody → kory (korybauer)

is what i was refering to

Ryan Ahearn (ryan-c-ahearn) wrote :

If this is still a problem in Baltix, please reopen.

Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Baltix):
status: New → Incomplete
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: prabhu (prabhuraja5) → omar199 (mynameisomar199)
mersi (yanyermias) on 2009-11-15
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: omar199 (mynameisomar199) → mersi (yanyermias)
laofob1 (laofob1) on 2009-12-15
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: mersi (yanyermias) → laofob1 (laofob1)
jpierre (jailtonpierre) on 2009-12-28
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: laofob1 (laofob1) → nobody
bby_emkinz (bby-emzii) on 2010-01-29
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Baltix):
status: Incomplete → Fix Released
roi30 (guilty--shadow) on 2010-01-31
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → roi30 (guilty--shadow)
era (era) on 2010-02-01
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu Gutsy):
assignee: kory (korybauer) → nobody
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: roi30 (guilty--shadow) → nobody
JHD49er (jhd49er) on 2010-02-22
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → JHD49er (jhd49er)
Dara Adib (daradib) on 2010-02-22
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: JHD49er (jhd49er) → nobody
ericscott (ejscomputers) on 2010-04-12
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
status: Fix Released → New
era (era) wrote :

@ericscott: if you genuinely meant to reopen this bug report, please provide more information. Which version are you experiencing this with? I was unable to reproduce the problem with a recent Lucid snapshot; I believe the same result is transferable to Karmic and Jaunty as well.

Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
status: New → Fix Released
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → Arie Kurniawan (kurniawan-arie13)
Displaying first 40 and last 40 comments. View all 337 comments or add a comment.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

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