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 Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has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.

-- 
-- 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]