SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

October 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dag Wieers <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dag Wieers <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:10:03 +0200
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (29 lines)
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, jdow wrote:

> In that vein it seems "odd" to me that a 32 bit package would be accepted as 
> an
> update for a 64 bit package. This seems to be to be a bug.

The reason is that some 64bit users have been using 32bit flash-plugins on 
64bit. Repoforge for some time (and now Adobe) offer 64bit flash-plugin 
packages, but a lot of 64bit users have the 32bit repository enabled.

Hence you get those conflicts.

There is nothing I can do regarding this. Users having problems may have 
to change their configuration and use the 64bit plugin instead. The only 
thing that is under my control is keeping the flash-plugin up-to-date.

Which is not that simple, because Red Hat is at flash-plugin v10 and Adobe 
does not release any security information, nor is there something I can 
subscribe to to get informed of updates.

Although I did add the 32bit and 64bit repositories to my local mrepo 
instance.

-- 
-- dag wieers, [log in to unmask], http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, [log in to unmask], http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2