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 Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has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My real point was that the rpmforge plugin is presumably out of
date if the adobe repo has a newer plugin with a higher release number.

-- 
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison		Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
[log in to unmask]	http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna