Bug 628804 - Please provide alternatives support in gnash-plugin
Summary: Please provide alternatives support in gnash-plugin
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gnash
Version: 13
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kevin Kofler
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-08-31 05:25 UTC by Hicham HAOUARI
Modified: 2010-08-31 18:05 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-08-31 18:05:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Hicham HAOUARI 2010-08-31 05:25:30 UTC
Description of problem:
Currently gnash installs its mozilla plugin directly into %{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins/libgnashplugin.so, but that is not optimal if the user installs third party flash handlers, and causes users to report invalid bugs.

The obvious solution is to provide a flash alternative, so that only a flash plugin can be used in the browser at a time.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.8.8-1

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Install gnash
2.Install a third party flash plugin
3.See weird behavior inside the browser
  
Actual results:
Weird behavior inside the browser due to conflicts between the plugins

Expected results:
Only one plugin should be used at a time

Comment 1 Hicham HAOUARI 2010-08-31 05:27:47 UTC
And please add a virtual provides in plugin package :

Provides: flash-plugin = %{version}-%{release}

Comment 2 Kevin Kofler 2010-08-31 18:05:04 UTC
Sorry, but as discussed on IRC:
* I really don't think alternatives makes sense to use here, as there's no file conflict to avoid. Having the browser pick a random plugin is no worse than alternatives doing so, and if you're going to set a (systemwide!) alternative, you can just yum remove the one you don't want. Plus, there are other ways to enforce priorities locally if really wanted (symlink into a higher-priority path, which can even be tuned per user).
* A big implementation roadblock is also that Adobe is extremely unlikely to ever support alternatives in its flash-plugin RPM.
* The Provides: flash-plugin is also unhelpful because the only people who'll ever explicitly ask for flash-plugin are those who want the Adobe one, and I don't see a package requiring a random Flash implementation either.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.