On 10/06/2011 04:19 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> > > > RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so
>>> there's > > no
>>> > > need to wait for it. In this case the 64bit is installed, so
>>> there is > > no
>>> > > reason to install the 32bit. Unless you want to replace the 64bit
>>> by > > the
>>> > > 32bit.
>>> > > Hmm. Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has
>>> > flash-plugin.x86_64 11.0.1.129-0.1.el6.rf rpmforge
>>> > > whereas the adobe-linux-i386 repo has
>>> > flash-plugin.i386 11.0.1.152-release @adobe-linux-i386
>>> > (Build Date: Sat 24 Sep 2011 02:45:27 AM BST).
>>>
>>> So, why would one replace a 64bit flash-plugin with a 32bit one ?
>>
>> Not so much that I want to - rather that the 32 bit adobe repo was
>> already enabled from when the machine was running SL5 and I have
>> only now looked for the adobe-linux-x86_64 repo.
>>
>> My real point was that the rpmforge plugin is presumably out of
>> date if the adobe repo has a newer plugin with a higher release number.
>
> It's quite hard to release before Adobe.
>

I realise that except for the Fermilab/CERN staff persons, almost all of 
the rest of those maintaining material for SL are unpaid volunteers. 
With that stated, what is the typical/average/median/whatever delay from 
the Adobe release until the SL compatible port for the flash plugin?

In some cases, Adobe adds functionality -- but in most cases it is a 
matter of bug and security-hole fixes -- and the sooner one installs a 
valid security fix, the better.

Yasha Karant