On 10/06/2011 10:08 AM, 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 Unless I am using an out of date mirror RPMforge has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 ?
>
> If the 64bit version was used, it simply would have worked.
>

Unless I misunderstood, the 32 bit version is the current ("most 
secure") release, 152, whereas the 64 bit version is not current, 129.

I face the same problem, and thus attempt to keep a 32 bit Firefox 
installed, non-distro but straight from Mozilla, and use the 32 bit 
plugins, etc.  This presents the additional issue of keeping all of the 
needed 32 bit .so libraries, etc., in place.

Evidently, a number of stock end-user applications, such as Firefox, 
Thunderbird, and the like, have security holes as well as bugs, and thus 
need regularly kept current.

Yasha Karant