Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #166204 > unrolled thread

What Package?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  What Package? Arnoud van der Veer <arnoudvanderveer@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-02 19:50 +0200
    Re: What Package? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-04-02 21:50 +0200
      Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-03 18:00 +0200
        Re: What Package? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-04-03 20:50 +0200
        Re: What Package? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 23:50 +0200
          Re: What Package? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-04 15:20 +0200
    Re: What Package? kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 05:50 +0200
    Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-03 18:00 +0200
    Re: What Package? Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> - 2016-04-03 18:40 +0200
      Re: What Package? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-04-03 20:10 +0200
      Re: What Package? Harris Paltrowitz <harris1nyc@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:50 +0200
        Re: What Package? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-04-03 21:00 +0200
        Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-03 21:00 +0200
          Re: What Package? Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:40 +0200
            Re: What Package? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-04-04 16:30 +0200
            Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-04 17:10 +0200
              Re: What Package? Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:10 +0200
                Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-09 18:40 +0200
                  Re: What Package? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-04-10 18:00 +0200
                    Re: What Package? Harris Paltrowitz <harris1nyc@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 01:00 +0200
                      Re: What Package? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-11 03:10 +0200
                      Re: What Package? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-04-11 09:40 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#166604

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

(Quoting fixed.)

On 2016-04-10 at 18:54, Harris Paltrowitz wrote:

> On Apr 10, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Those that do still use it (Flash) should upgrade to the newest
>> version (which I believe is 11.2.202.616) as they've recently fixed
>> some critical vulnerabilities (on 4-7-2016).
> 
> Any idea whether the package "flashplugin-nonfree" is being updated
> in the same way?"

The package itself is just a downloader+installer, with a few associated
utility programs. It doesn't always get updated when the plugin it
downloads does, but you can trigger the download yourself.

To check whether a new version is available upstream, run:
update-flashplugin-nonfree --status

To initiate an update attempt, run:
update-flashplugin-nonfree --install

Both commands will only work as root. (You can get the 'status' command
to work as an ordinary user with fakeroot and the full path, but that's
a bit more complicated.)

Unfortunately, however, just because the 'status' command shows a new
version as being available that doesn't mean the 'install' command will
necessarily pick it up. The 'install' process checks the upstream binary
against a validation list available on the package maintainer's personal
Debian Webspace, and if it doesn't find a match, it doesn't download or
install the new version. (This rather surprised me, the first time I
encountered it.)

In my experience, the new version will become installable via this
procedure within a week or so after it gets released. There's no visible
indication of when this has happened that I know of; you just have to
keep retrying the 'install' command until it goes through.

Anyone interested in exactly how this works is encouraged to examine the
update-flashplugin-nonfree executable; it's a standard shell script,
although a somewhat involved one.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166610

On 2016-04-10, Harris Paltrowitz <harris1nyc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Those that do still use it (Flash) should upgrade to the newest version
> (which I believe is 11.2.202.616) as they've recently fixed some
> critical vulnerabilities (on 4-7-2016).
> -----------------------------
>
> Any idea whether the package "flashplugin-nonfree" is being updated in
> the same way?"
>

There was a time when the flashplugin-nonfree package was broken somehow
(I don't remember the exact details--see Wanderer's post for what the
package is and how it is supposed to be used). From that point forward I
took it upon myself to retrieve the most recent libflashplayer.so file
and stick it in the appropriate place(s), extracting the library from
the tar.gz archive offered on the Adobe site.  I didn't bother
installing the deb.

-- 
Hypertext--or should I say the ideology of hypertext?--is ultrademocratic and
so entirely in harmony with the demagogic appeals to cultural democracy that
accompany (and distract one’s attention from) the ever-tightening grip of 
plutocratic capitalism. - Susan Sontag

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web