[jaunty] Ubuntu should install 64bit flash when installing flashplugin-nonfree on 64bit systems

Bug #310031 reported by Emilio
46
This bug affects 7 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned
Nominated for Jaunty by Emilio

Bug Description

- Bug declined, Jaunty already install 64bit flash when installing flashplugin-nonfree on 64bit systems -

If you install flashplugin-nonfree on a x64 system, it should automatically install the 64bit version of Flash 10, instead of the 32bit version+nspluginwrapper.
Comment: actually it does exactly that ;)

 On x86 systems, it should install the x86 version, as it currently does.

More information on flash 10 can be seen here: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes_64bit.html
You can Download flash 10 x64 from this Adobe Page: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html

Daniel T Chen (crimsun)
Changed in flashplugin-nonfree:
status: New → Invalid
Revision history for this message
costales (costales) wrote :

Why this bug is marked as invalid?????
Best regards.
Marcos.

Revision history for this message
Loïc Martin (loic-martin3) wrote :

Jaunty should already install 64bits flash. Did you try installing the package in Jaunty amd64 before submitting the bug?

Revision history for this message
Loïc Martin (loic-martin3) wrote :

Check debian/config:

if [ "$(uname -m)" = "x86_64" ]; then
    SUM="67aa4a0b205584bc5a841eb948cafab7f888ec79"
    FILE="libflashplayer-10.0.d21.1.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz"
else
    SUM="45a37b04f5cbd32eaea8a9b02d38dd71d963ae48"
    FILE="install_flash_player_10_linux.tar.gz"
fi

libflashplayer-10.0.d21.1.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz seems 64bits to me ;)

description: updated
Revision history for this message
Kẏra (thekyriarchy) wrote :

So why is it that when i installed flashplugin-nonfree in jaunty it required nspluginwrapper?

Revision history for this message
Alexander Sack (asac) wrote :

we reverted that. we will not pull in non-final plugins.

Revision history for this message
Kẏra (thekyriarchy) wrote :

Even though 64-bit flash in alpha is supposedly more stable than the 32-bit final release? Exceptions can't be made?

Revision history for this message
Alexander Sack (asac) wrote :

no, we need the file in the archive.canonical.com archive as otherwise we will regress back to the state where on every upstream version bump, the install of flashplugin-nonfree will fail ... and its not possible to distribute the beta's there for non-technical reasons.

Revision history for this message
Kẏra (thekyriarchy) wrote :

There is no way to get the file on archive.canonical.com ?

If not, could someone set up a PPA or some repository to use?

Revision history for this message
mmalmeida (mmalmeida) wrote :

I agree with Danny: I have a 64 bit system (because it's the best way to get an optimized 4GB ram machine) and I installed the flash-nonfree Flash player from the sources.

The result was a non-functional flash on the first 2 out of 3 flash applications I tested (Youtube worked, Facebook's Farmtown and http://speedmeter.fccn.pt/ didn't).

If you can't/won't default Flash 64 for 64 machines, at least explicitly say that in the package manager's Flash description and point to a How-to site on how to have a working 64 machine.

Revision history for this message
rebroad (rebroad) wrote :

I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 64bit.. I cannot get flash working in firefox. I've tried the adobe site, and also the flashplugin-nonfree. flash does not work though...

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

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