On 2011/10/06 13:12, 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 Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has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.

And even an explicit "yum update flash-plugin.x86_64" still tries to update
the .i386 version. I disabled the adobe repo. That seems to sort of fix it.
Now, I hope the 64 bit version updates properly. (Of course, I seldom use
the browser on that particular machine. Lately I've been using it to stream
some background music for the room. Otherwise I'd have never bothered with
the flash plugin. KUSC and K-Mozart are unlikely to be sources of 'ix type
nasties. So I figure I'm safe.)

{^_^}