Hello,
I use epiphany as my default browser of choice instead firefox. This goes well on i386 installs of Fedora but on x86_64 installations this becomes a trouble, if tools like nspluginwrapper are not working fine or if 64bit JRE plugin is not there yet.
Fedora for x86_64 has a firefox.i386 package for 32bit compatibility, should epiphany also have epiphany.i386 package in x86_64 repo ?
Kevin
Anuj Verma (Kevin) wrote:
Hello,
I use epiphany as my default browser of choice instead firefox. This goes well on i386 installs of Fedora but on x86_64 installations this becomes a trouble, if tools like nspluginwrapper are not working fine or if 64bit JRE plugin is not there yet.
Fedora for x86_64 has a firefox.i386 package for 32bit compatibility, should epiphany also have epiphany.i386 package in x86_64 repo ?
Fedora doesn't have a 32 bit package for compatibility; it's only there because of the way multilib works. If so many apps didn't rely on it to build against, there would be only a 64 bit version.
Now that nspluginwrapper is in rawhide though, it should be working no? File a bug if not.
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:22:10 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Fedora doesn't have a 32 bit package for compatibility; it's only there because of the way multilib works. If so many apps didn't rely on it to build against, there would be only a 64 bit version.
but there is a firefox.i386
Now that nspluginwrapper is in rawhide though, it should be working no? File a bug if not.
yes i noticed that "nspluginwrapper" is there but it is not working right for sure. I hope to bug report it soon.
Anuj Verma (Kevin) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:22:10 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Fedora doesn't have a 32 bit package for compatibility; it's only there because of the way multilib works. If so many apps didn't rely on it to build against, there would be only a 64 bit version.
but there is a firefox.i386
yes because packages needs it to build against it. (every package that has a -devel package has a i386 and a x86_64 version)
Now that nspluginwrapper is in rawhide though, it should be working no? File a bug if not.
yes i noticed that "nspluginwrapper" is there but it is not working right for sure. I hope to bug report it soon.
works fine here also we have a 64bit java plugin in rawhide (I am using blackdown java on my x86_64 f7 box)
dragoran wrote:
Anuj Verma (Kevin) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:22:10 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Fedora doesn't have a 32 bit package for compatibility; it's only there because of the way multilib works. If so many apps didn't rely on it to build against, there would be only a 64 bit version.
but there is a firefox.i386
yes because packages needs it to build against it. (every package that has a -devel package has a i386 and a x86_64 version)
Now that nspluginwrapper is in rawhide though, it should be working no? File a bug if not.
yes i noticed that "nspluginwrapper" is there but it is not working right for sure. I hope to bug report it soon.
works fine here also we have a 64bit java plugin in rawhide (I am using blackdown java on my x86_64 f7 box)
I tried both IcedTea and Black down 64bit plugin those work, but the flash-plugin is not working at all under nspluginwrapper
Kevin Verma wrote:
dragoran wrote:
Anuj Verma (Kevin) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:22:10 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Fedora doesn't have a 32 bit package for compatibility; it's only there because of the way multilib works. If so many apps didn't rely on it to build against, there would be only a 64 bit version.
but there is a firefox.i386
yes because packages needs it to build against it. (every package that has a -devel package has a i386 and a x86_64 version)
Now that nspluginwrapper is in rawhide though, it should be working no? File a bug if not.
yes i noticed that "nspluginwrapper" is there but it is not working right for sure. I hope to bug report it soon.
works fine here also we have a 64bit java plugin in rawhide (I am using blackdown java on my x86_64 f7 box)
I tried both IcedTea and Black down 64bit plugin those work, but the flash-plugin is not working at all under nspluginwrapper
working fine here... no crashes or anything does not notice anything different then without nspluginwrapper... is it listed under about:plugins ?
dragoran wrote:
Kevin Verma wrote:
dragoran wrote:
Anuj Verma (Kevin) wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:22:10 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Fedora doesn't have a 32 bit package for compatibility; it's only there because of the way multilib works. If so many apps didn't rely on it to build against, there would be only a 64 bit version.
but there is a firefox.i386
yes because packages needs it to build against it. (every package that has a -devel package has a i386 and a x86_64 version)
Now that nspluginwrapper is in rawhide though, it should be working no? File a bug if not.
yes i noticed that "nspluginwrapper" is there but it is not working right for sure. I hope to bug report it soon.
works fine here also we have a 64bit java plugin in rawhide (I am using blackdown java on my x86_64 f7 box)
I tried both IcedTea and Black down 64bit plugin those work, but the flash-plugin is not working at all under nspluginwrapper
working fine here... no crashes or anything does not notice anything different then without nspluginwrapper... is it listed under about:plugins ?
Hello,
Thanks for offering your help, I was too nick of time to test this issue previously. All the time in about:plugins flash plugin was listed as unknown plugin "do not open"
However with today's nspluginwrapper & firefox updates, I looked into this issue further and I found that perhaps an old stale file "npwrapper.libflashplayer.so" was causing the issue, I simply removed the same and re-installed flash-plugin & nspluginwrapper packages with yum.
Not really running after major bugs this season, lot too many folks have their eyes on it :-)
Cheers, Kevin
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Anuj Verma (Kevin) -
Christopher Aillon -
drago01 -
Kevin Verma