On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 04:35, I.Petrov wrote:

Hello,

No problems for me (I'm on 12.3), but at least the plugin-container must be restarted after the update. My package however differs from this on Patrick don't know why.

rpm -q flash-player flash-player-11.2.202.440-2.115.1.x86_64

Best Regards, I. Petrov

On 01/30/2015 05:18 AM, Robert Rea wrote:

...

On Friday, January 30, 2015 03:23:14 AM Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Hi,

In my 13.1, Firefox is suddenly blocking outdated flash plugin, it says, yet I have the most recent YOU update.

Telcontar:~ # rpm -qa | grep flash flash-player-gnome-11.2.202.440-94.1.x86_64 flash-player-11.2.202.440-94.1.x86_64 pullin-flash-player-12.3-4.1.2.x86_64 flash-player-kde4-11.2.202.440-94.1.x86_64 Telcontar:~ #

Firefox about:plugins says:

File: libflashplayer.so Path: /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so Version: 11.2.202.438 State: Enabled (STATE_VULNERABLE_UPDATE_AVAILABLE) Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

Happening to me in 12.3 too, but it allows me tyo active it and have it remembered, so that it works for a while, and then spits up again. In some videos I casn click on the blank window and activate it. This just begun today.

Excerpt from my FX.default.profile/blocklist.xml , dated 2015-01-28 22:39:04 GMT: [code] <blocklist xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/2006/addons-blocklist" lastupdate="1422484744000"> ... <pluginItem os="Linux" blockID="p826"> <match name="filename" exp="libflashplayer\.so" /> <versionRange minVersion="11.2.202.425" maxVersion="11.2.202.439" severity="0" vulnerabilitystatus="1"> </versionRange> <infoURL>https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/</infoURL> </pluginItem> [/code] If I read that right, all versions between .425 and .439 (edges included) are declared vulnerable, and blocked. So, version .438 is blocked, while .440 works. And, yes a restart of firefox after the plugin update is needed, else firefox does not read in the info on the plugin, just killing the plugin-container will not help. Does this give some enlightment? - Yamaban. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-01-30 05:13, Yamaban wrote:

So, version .438 is blocked, while .440 works.

And, yes a restart of firefox after the plugin update is needed, else firefox does not read in the info on the plugin, just killing the plugin-container will not help.

Does this give some enlightment?

I restarted FF (again) and FF still says I have Version: 11.2.202.438. But the rpm is 11.2.202.440. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 2015-01-30 13:42, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carlos E. R. <> [01-30-15 07:33]:

Firefox has a problem dealing with removal of user installed plugins and has for some years. There is ongoing work/discussion in their bug reports about it.

But it is not user installed, it is system installed. I see no "flash*" file installed in the ~/mozilla/* tree. However, I started FF as another user, and this one gets version 440. So the system library is correct, my user is getting it wrong somehow. Or rather FF is being stupid and getting the right file and incorrect info.

That said, I would try removing the current plugin, restarting firefox and reinstalling the "correct" plugin.

I doubt that reinstalling the rpm will do anything, as another user sees the correct version.

ps: might open the rpm and check the version reported as filename might be incorrect.

I looked inside the text strings of the binary library... correct. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, Edit manually pluginsreg.dat in your mozilla profile directory. There is a line with the flash-player version which you see in the about:plugins page (11.2.202.438 in your case). Below there is a line which starts with a timestamp 142205500000 (or similar) change it to e.g. 132205500000 and restart firefox. This should solve your problem as should force firefox to check for new plugins when starts. Best Regards, I. Petrov On 01/30/2015 03:00 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-01-30 13:42, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Carlos E. R. <> [01-30-15 07:33]:

...

Firefox has a problem dealing with removal of user installed plugins and has for some years. There is ongoing work/discussion in their bug reports about it.

But it is not user installed, it is system installed.

I see no "flash*" file installed in the ~/mozilla/* tree.

However, I started FF as another user, and this one gets version 440. So the system library is correct, my user is getting it wrong somehow. Or rather FF is being stupid and getting the right file and incorrect info.

...

That said, I would try removing the current plugin, restarting firefox and reinstalling the "correct" plugin.

I doubt that reinstalling the rpm will do anything, as another user sees the correct version.

...

ps: might open the rpm and check the version reported as filename might be incorrect.

I looked inside the text strings of the binary library... correct.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUy4OOAAoJEH8sJoKRFRU55IYP/A7EADsYQ0bjyaun5n8wDWcz D00s2hXypgpXL7PUa1Adlkng9IqQ1Y7JxTGSVi7ODdp1zMU1PlIWLr0aviQEGBRT d33KhI5EkRgDuLLvjFZKTcqLHsPhD1f8JMwye4ZeiUE/9nf768kV9oOTqqjwDQu7 yCa1HUWmCk1Kwlt7xQl8xQ2wBjjCKVbPeLLOSdJfpo8w5sZbQX72NQaQWIEbZMhf vGnIoSTdWgvi0Nq8vYrQpcEcW9KKXm8PqlY/M3U95x1DJpq56Hsybyn6pgxsRPar W1n0JVJ5mAexwnaW6lGXXnwvmaLL5jwaJjCDeoINRDBnIRAf5NQi5TSzC4QQjCRX JryrqlMJfdWdLryHWb6+gwLfHlXpbe1IzF1jbvD6yozEtQOjj/B44q+1IrtYQois Woa66s+7UfS3Qj7tiaqVq9k35W0mESL+NOrYGFyuy+Tx/xUTysvLIXcdoHNpJFC+ 8ExyhOZEqKApJuCZvcCVjtbiW3Qn6s9gFBvCzsntNer7VChlUzbJKr/s2zb+jwD/ KtFRLPMCn4Ktv12FUpq313vM6BtiKl126mrYdXwovbGxT6dBGyaG9WN7/Mk4jCGt eDFD6ivKlnaxjaexvgIPWKghLXJrMnFf2XN2yPfeOijcxf3mAUDQpAIRGPU6cLoH VkC3DWrh1SovN52FNVju =Psk+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 01/30/2015 07:00 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-01-30 13:42, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Carlos E. R. <> [01-30-15 07:33]: Firefox has a problem dealing with removal of user installed plugins and has for some years. There is ongoing work/discussion in their bug reports about it. But it is not user installed, it is system installed.

I see no "flash*" file installed in the ~/mozilla/* tree.

However, I started FF as another user, and this one gets version 440. So the system library is correct, my user is getting it wrong somehow. Or rather FF is being stupid and getting the right file and incorrect info.

...

That said, I would try removing the current plugin, restarting firefox and reinstalling the "correct" plugin. I doubt that reinstalling the rpm will do anything, as another user sees the correct version.

...

ps: might open the rpm and check the version reported as filename might be incorrect. I looked inside the text strings of the binary library... correct.

The bottom line is that flash for Linux is no longer supported beyond what you already have installed. It's a pain in the asphalt but you will just have to muddle through with what's available. I watched a flash video just a few minutes ago and I had to tell Firefox to use what it already had. It just doesn't seem to remember from start to the next start that you want it to use what flash plugin it has installed. There is no fix. There will be no fix. [ unless someone can crack flash and write a whole new plugin from scratch. ] At some point you may never be able to watch a flash video again in Linux. We will just have to learn to live without it. -- “Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century.” - Joan Rivers _ _... ..._ _ _._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-01-30 15:37, Billie Walsh wrote:

The bottom line is that flash for Linux is no longer supported beyond

Tell that to my water supplier. Not videos, but actual menus. And 50% cpu load. It works now, It was FF fault, not flash. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On Friday 30 January 2015, Daniel Bauer wrote:

Am 30.01.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

...

On 2015-01-30 15:37, Billie Walsh wrote:

...

The bottom line is that flash for Linux is no longer supported beyond

Tell that to my water supplier. Not videos, but actual menus. And 50% cpu load.

You're in Spain, no? I've never seen so many useless flash sites like here and I've never seen so much inability even in big companies. Sometimes I wonder why internet even works here.

In fact my former electricity supplier had a website that was only accessible with internet exploder. As they, of course, did not react on my complaint, I have changed the supplier. Now I pay less and have a quite decent website to see my bills...

YOU must tell them. Otherwise they think they are great geniuses and instead of doing their work take another mojito on the beach :-)

The consumer is the boss! You.

Hehe, I remember one story where we called our Bank's support (AFAIR Deutsche Bank) to tell them about a flash related problem with a certain website of them. But the support could reproduce it because they had the policy to not allow their employees to have flash installed ... and they didn't fixed it. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Friday 30 January 2015, Ruediger Meier wrote:

On Friday 30 January 2015, Daniel Bauer wrote:

...

Am 30.01.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

...

On 2015-01-30 15:37, Billie Walsh wrote:

...

The bottom line is that flash for Linux is no longer supported beyond

Tell that to my water supplier. Not videos, but actual menus. And 50% cpu load.

You're in Spain, no? I've never seen so many useless flash sites like here and I've never seen so much inability even in big companies. Sometimes I wonder why internet even works here.

In fact my former electricity supplier had a website that was only accessible with internet exploder. As they, of course, did not react on my complaint, I have changed the supplier. Now I pay less and have a quite decent website to see my bills...

YOU must tell them. Otherwise they think they are great geniuses and instead of doing their work take another mojito on the beach :-)

The consumer is the boss! You.

Hehe, I remember one story where we called our Bank's support (AFAIR Deutsche Bank) to tell them about a flash related problem with a certain website of them.

But the support could reproduce it because they had the policy to not I ment could NOT ... of course.

allow their employees to have flash installed ... and they didn't fixed it.

cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-01-30 16:08, Daniel Bauer wrote:

Am 30.01.2015 um 15:56 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

...

On 2015-01-30 15:37, Billie Walsh wrote:

...

The bottom line is that flash for Linux is no longer supported beyond

Tell that to my water supplier. Not videos, but actual menus. And 50% cpu load.

You're in Spain, no? I've never seen so many useless flash sites like here and I've never seen so much inability even in big companies. Sometimes I wonder why internet even works here.

Money. People have offered services to businesses to create presence in Internet, so they do. Shiny sites, often with static information. With mailboxes they never even retrieve.

In fact my former electricity supplier had a website that was only accessible with internet exploder. As they, of course, did not react on my complaint, I have changed the supplier. Now I pay less and have a quite decent website to see my bills...

Try Chrome. Most of the sites I need work with FF, and those that don't work with Chrome. But yes, I know at least one that wants IE: Securitas Direct. And it is not based in Spain. The other day they emailed a link to a new test site that asks for login, on a different domain, so it could be a phishing attempt. Yes, I emailed them, complaining. No answer. But at least it works in Linux. Many gadgets require you use Windows for maintenance. Like Samsung or TomTom. Even if the gadgets have Linux inside.

YOU must tell them. Otherwise they think they are great geniuses and instead of doing their work take another mojito on the beach :-)

"Yo paso". That's a lost cause here. In fact this water company doesn't do anything over internet. The flash box is just a list of phones and addresses. Street addresses, no email. Fax. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 2015-01-30 16:01, Daniel Bauer wrote:

Flash is dead.

You tell that to my bank. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On Friday 30 January 2015, ellanios82 wrote:

On 01/30/2015 05:01 PM, Daniel Bauer wrote:

...

It's a pain in the asphalt but ~

................

- using TW : Google-Chrome browser seems to work well : believe it has built-in flash that Chromium does not have

Yep and it's even up-to-date version 16.0.0.291. It's because Adobe sold the sources somehow to google. http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/02/adobe-and-google-partnering-for-f... Well, snd that's why they are not interested to update the ns plugin (for other browsers) anymore ... cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 01/30/2015 09:37 AM, Billie Walsh wrote:

The bottom line is that flash for Linux is no longer supported beyond what you already have installed. It's a pain in the asphalt but you will just have to muddle through with what's available.

One thing I came across recently. Many sites have both flash and HTML5 videos available. Many browsers, including Firefox default to flash. You can change the default to HTML5 by going to www.youtube.com/html5. That will change it for Youtube. I don't know if it affects other sites. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Am 30.01.2015 um 17:15 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

On 2015-01-30 16:42, James Knott wrote:

...

That will change it for Youtube. I don't know if it affects other sites.

Nope.

From the german mailing list about a similar topic: in about:config in Firefox change media.mediasource.enabled to true hth -- Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona http://www.daniel-bauer.com room in Barcelona: https://www.airbnb.es/rooms/2416137 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 01/30/2015 11:15 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

That will change it for Youtube. I don't know if it affects other sites. Nope.

What is it that gets changed so that HTML5 is selected? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Hello, On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Billie Walsh wrote:

The bottom line is that flash for Linux is no longer supported beyond what you already have installed.

Ahem, who do you think provided the updates to .438 and now .440 then? Adobe _still_ obviously does fix security problems so it seems. But that's it. Enjoy while it lasts. And, again I have .440 available for 12.1-12.3 in my home repo if you're lagging with the upgrade to 13.x

It's a pain in the asphalt but you will just have to muddle through with what's available. I watched a flash video just a few minutes ago and I had to tell Firefox to use what it already had. It just doesn't seem to remember from start to the next start that you want it to use what flash plugin it has installed.

You seem rather confused here. Do you have multiple flash-plugins installed? If so: clean up. Remove them all! I recommend you remove alternative plugins (gnash etc.) too. Install the latest 11.2.202.440. All fixed. And install the prefbar addon so you can switch on flash only when wanted. And Noscript. <comment elided> -dnh -- * Linux Viruscan..... Windows 95 found. Remove it? (Y/y) -- Unknown source -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 13:22, Billie Walsh wrote:

On 01/31/2015 12:22 AM, David Haller wrote:

...

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Billie Walsh wrote:

...

The bottom line is that flash for Linux is no longer supported beyond what you already have installed.

Ahem, who do you think provided the updates to .438 and now .440 then? Adobe _still_ obviously does fix security problems so it seems. But that's it. Enjoy while it lasts. And, again I have .440 available for 12.1-12.3 in my home repo if you're lagging with the upgrade to 13.x

...

It's a pain in the asphalt but you will just have to muddle through with what's available. I watched a flash video just a few minutes ago and I had to tell Firefox to use what it already had. It just doesn't seem to remember from start to the next start that you want it to use what flash plugin it has installed. You seem rather confused here. Do you have multiple flash-plugins installed? If so: clean up. Remove them all! I recommend you remove alternative plugins (gnash etc.) too. Install the latest 11.2.202.440. All fixed. And install the prefbar addon so you can switch on flash only when wanted. And Noscript.

<comment elided> -dnh

According to the Adobe website:

"*NOTE*: Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux."

I do have the latest and greatest installed. Firefox still wants a newer version that will never come.

The Windows version of Flash Player is now 16.0.0.296. This is what Firefox is programmed to want.

False. Wrong. FF handles each operating system for each own. Open the blocklist.xml from your FF profile dir and see for your self: Look at the matches for the filenames: For MacOS only: <pluginItem blockID="p94"> <match name="filename" exp="Flash\ Player\.plugin" /> <versionRange minVersion="0" maxVersion="10.2.159.1" severity="0"> </versionRange> <infoURL>https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/</infoURL> </pluginItem> For MS Windows only: <pluginItem blockID="p160"> <match name="filename" exp="NPSWF32\.dll" /> <versionRange minVersion="0" maxVersion="10.2.9999" severity="0" vulnerabilitystatus="1"> </versionRange> <infoURL>https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/</infoURL> </pluginItem> For Linux only: <pluginItem os="Linux" blockID="p826"> <match name="filename" exp="libflashplayer\.so" /> <versionRange minVersion="11.2.202.425" maxVersion="11.2.202.439" severity="0" vulnerabilitystatus="1"> </versionRange> <infoURL>https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/</infoURL> </pluginItem> For MacOS and Windows combined: <pluginItem blockID="p828"> <match name="filename" exp="(NPSWF32.*\.dll)|(Flash\ Player\.plugin)" /> <versionRange minVersion="15.0.0.243" maxVersion="16.0.0.287" severity="0" vulnerabilitystatus="1"> </versionRange> <infoURL>https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/</infoURL> </pluginItem> Each OS is handled as needed. ATM the version numbers for MacOS and Windows are the same, thus a combined entry is used. But Linux has only limited support by Adobe and thus a other version number, and gets a own entry. Please, check first, then reply to a mail. - Yamaban. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-01-30 04:27, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:

Did you restart firefox ater flash update?

Yes. And done it again now. No change. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:52, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2015-01-30 04:27, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:

...

В Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:23:14 +0100 (CET) "Carlos E. R." <> пишет:

...

...

Telcontar:~ # rpm -qa | grep flash flash-player-gnome-11.2.202.440-94.1.x86_64 flash-player-11.2.202.440-94.1.x86_64 pullin-flash-player-12.3-4.1.2.x86_64 flash-player-kde4-11.2.202.440-94.1.x86_64 Telcontar:~ #

...

Firefox about:plugins says:

...

File: libflashplayer.so Path: /usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so Version: 11.2.202.438

I looked at an hexdump of "/usr/lib64/browser-plugins/libflashplayer.so". I see:

|mms:.view-source| |:.serverString.L| |NX 11,2,202,440.| |hasAudio.hasStre|

That's the version string, and it is correct, 440. Yet FF says 438.

Not only I restarted FF, I restarted the entire graphical session.

Delete the file pluginreg.dat in your FF profile dir, it will be recreated by FF at the next restart of FF, with fresh information. This is a case that should not happen, but is sometimes does anyway. - Yamaban.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 01:40, Felix Miata wrote:

This thread seems to have omitted info about which openSUSE release(s) the Flash security breach(es) apply to. On http://software.opensuse.org/package/flash-player only for TW is 440 shown. For 13.2 it's 411 and for 13.1 it's 310. What's the scoop? Why is latest Flash older for older yet supported releases? Are they all the same player version and just the rpm version is different?

AFAIK only the version included in the "GoldMaster" of the release is shown, and the "update-repo" is fully ignored, no matter what package. Even more giggle worthy is the state of the versions shown for Factory. There you will find nearly any version, but the actual. Maybe that could be GSOC project, to get the "update-repo" state shown here, too? - Yamaban. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. composed on 2015-01-31 02:02 (UTC+0100):

Felix Miata wrote:

...

This thread seems to have omitted info about which openSUSE release(s) the Flash security breach(es) apply to.

Nope. I said:

cer> In my 13.1, Firefox is suddenly blocking outdated flash plugin, it says, cer> yet I have the most recent YOU update.

Must have been yesterday, out with the trash I emptied after midnight.

So, 13.1. And it is also in my signature.

Among the 36 thread posts remaining in my trash I found no clue who started the thread, and mistakely thought to what it applied would be among such a large number of posts. You might have considerered a subject line with your OS version. Not everyone remembers which version(s) every regular here runs, and in successful archive searches it's commonly vital to know which OS version is being discussed to actually locate the information sought.

But the update applies to all oS releases. I think even 14.1 got it.

14.1? No such on https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Roadmap Do you mean Tumbleweed aka pre-beta 13.3?

...

On http://software.opensuse.org/package/flash-player only for TW is 440 shown. For 13.2 it's 411 and for 13.1 it's 310. What's the scoop? Why is latest Flash older for older yet supported releases? Are they all the same player version and just the rpm version is different?

I have version 440 on oS 13.1.

The following, in addition to what I wrote about software.opensuse.org, is what lead me to write: # grep PRETTY /etc/os-release PRETTY_NAME="openSUSE 13.1 (Bottle) (i586)" # rpm -qa | flash-player | grep -v pullin flash-player-11.2.202.310-2.1.6.i586 # zypper ref; zypper se -s flash-player | grep 586 | grep -v pullin i | flash-player | package | 11.2.202.310-2.1.6 | i586 | Non-OSS | flash-player-gnome | package | 11.2.202.310-2.1.6 | i586 | Non-OSS | flash-player-kde4 | package | 11.2.202.310-2.1.6 | i586 | Non-OSS Only one available? That cannot be right. As if Flash itself wasn't a bad enough problem, people ought to be able to get what they need reliably about installed packages from their package manager instead of this confusion. X wasn't and isn't running here, so no opportunity to goto about:plugins. I'm trying to get a new RAID configured, reading here during waits, and being obstructed by stupid little things like this coming from every direction. It's a new 13.1, which ultimately will be on RAID, and right now with all packages I thought I needed already installed, it takes over a minute to start shutting down once instructed to shut down. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. composed on 2015-01-31 03:51 (UTC+0100):

On 2015-01-31 03:10, Felix Miata wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. composed on 2015-01-31 02:02 (UTC+0100):

...

Must have been yesterday, out with the trash I emptied after midnight.

...

...

So, 13.1. And it is also in my signature.

...

Among the 36 thread posts remaining in my trash I found no clue who started the thread, and mistakely thought to what it applied would be among such a large number of posts.

...

You might have considerered a subject line with your OS version. Not everyone remembers which version(s) every regular here runs, and in successful archive searches it's commonly vital to know which OS version is being discussed to actually locate the information sought.

But I place that information on the signature.

Signatures are supposed to be limited to a reasonable length, so that particular bit isn't in mine, which is just as well, as not every reader of email even gets to find out any .sig even exists. Some email apps hide it. I only look there in OPs. Your OP escaped here 23 hours ago.

And I don't delete a thread in mail list in about a year, so I don't have problems with locating the starting post. The archives have it all, complete, so the information is there.

Lucky you. I count on online archives, but in this case, like many openSUSE, I skipped even looking there, because in the high volume lists finding things there is annoying due to absence of date sorting in by-author pages. Finding any particular OP hurts my eyes. I thought the 36 in trash should have provided enough info. My mistake.

No, it is your fault for deleting posts too early,

I get hundreds of emails a day, so have to deal with most quickly to prevent backup. I wasn't interested in this thread yesterday, so none from it carried over.

or not looking it up in the archive. :-P :-)

Yup.

...

...

But the update applies to all oS releases. I think even 14.1 got it.

...

14.1? No such on https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Roadmap Do you mean Tumbleweed aka pre-beta 13.3?

Nope. I do mean 11.4, the very old 11.4 which is still partially supported by the Evergreen group.

When you mean 11.4, don't write 14.1. It's confusing.

You surely know what Evergreen is?

It's what I'm in the middle of trying to escape from on this 24/7 box, something I've been trying to do since October. If you see little to nothing from me here in the coming hours (or day or two), that should be why.

...

# rpm -qa | flash-player | grep -v pullin flash-player-11.2.202.310-2.1.6.i586

...

# zypper ref; zypper se -s flash-player | grep 586 | grep -v pullin i | flash-player | package | 11.2.202.310-2.1.6 | i586 | Non-OSS | flash-player-gnome | package | 11.2.202.310-2.1.6 | i586 | Non-OSS | flash-player-kde4 | package | 11.2.202.310-2.1.6 | i586 | Non-OSS

...

Only one available? That cannot be right.

Well, your system is wrong. :-)

Ya think. :-D

Version 310 is the never updated version, from the non-oss repo. Did you remove the non-oss-update repo?

Funny story. Turns it it appears, until now, I may not have had that particular repo on any installation newer than 12.2. Flash is a usability nightmare, so it doesn't get installed on my testing installations, and is allowed to be found on no more than one Mozilla profile per local user, if that many. Apparently the only thing in that repo besides Flash that I've ever installed is Opera, which I stopped caring about too long ago to remember. Thus, when the leading "repo-"s got stripped from /etc/zypp/repos.d/, that one got removed rather than edited. Now that I have 440 I can go back to figuring out why a reboot takes a minute before anything shutdown related becomes apparent. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2015-01-30 21:23, Yamaban wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:52, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Delete the file pluginreg.dat in your FF profile dir, it will be recreated by FF at the next restart of FF, with fresh information.

This is a case that should not happen, but is sometimes does anyway.

Thanks. You missed the post from I. Petrov, instructing me to edit that file. Changing the timestamp of the flash plugin in the file forced FF to re-evaluate it. I did, and FF is working fine now :-) Isn't deleting the entire file too drastic, or is it recreated fully without destroying something important? Side effects? -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 2015-01-31 01:58, Carl Hartung wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 01:53:11 +0100 Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Isn't deleting the entire file too drastic, or is it recreated fully without destroying something important? Side effects?

This fix isn't dramatic at all and it goes back ages. It's completely harmless. It just forces FF to evaluate what plugins are installed and re-register them (recreating the file in the process.)

Good to know. But I'll forget :-( Wrote a note file in the FF directory... now I have to remember to look in it, next time ;-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

On 2015-01-31 02:12, Yamaban wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 01:53, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

That is why this file can be removed without harm.

Thanks for the explanation, instructive :-) Yes, I understand the concept of that file. Makes sense.

For further info the MozillaZine Knowlegdebase is a good startpoint. http://kb.mozillazine.org/Flash

Ah! I forgot about that resource. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)