On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Yasha Karant wrote:

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 Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has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

Do you have proof that this is a security fix. Because I track the RHEL 
packages and no such update has come through their channels. It seems as 
if the release was simply their official Flash Player 11 release, rather 
than a security fix.

If it is a security fix, even Red Hat is behind. Somehow I don't believe 
that, but for you to provide proof of what you state. Thanks.

-- 
-- 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]