Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: New Flash player download 10.0.45.2

Expand Messages
  • palowoda
    ... Thanks, that one indeed does have the correct new libflashplayer. For security reasons others may want to use that one until Adobe and the OpenSolaris
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In solarisx86@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Biggar <stuart.biggar@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:06 AM, palowoda wrote:
      > >
      > > > > Hmm, I must be missing something obvious. I download it from that
      > > > > url and I still
      > > > > get the older _42 version. Did this happen to anyone else?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > Sure did. I ended up downloading the zip file with all versions of
      > > > the player
      > > > (yes windows, linux, solaris, ...). The up-to-date one was in that
      > > > bundle.
      > >
      > > Ah, you have a url reference for the bundled zip package?
      > >
      > > ---Bob
      > >
      > Bob,
      >
      > Try starting at:
      >
      > http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/142/tn_14266.html
      >
      > and get the Flash 10 archive. After Unzipping
      > that I found the latest x86 Solaris one.
      >

      Thanks, that one indeed does have the correct new libflashplayer. For security reasons
      others may want to use that one until Adobe and the OpenSolaris /extra repo get the
      versions correct.

      ---Bob
    • John D Groenveld
      In message , John D Groenveld wr ... $ /usr/sfw/bin/openssl md5 flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 17, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        In message <201002160343.o1G3hGL4014982@...>, John D Groenveld wr
        ites:
        >$ /usr/sfw/bin/openssl md5 flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2
        >MD5(flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2)= bef7ea955a9a933347d9ce45bdbcc220

        $ /usr/sfw/bin/openssl md5 flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2
        MD5(flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2)= 88186b644a1c5a32f6e71fc1e5d7d57d
        $ bzip2 -dc flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2 | tar tvf -
        -rwxr-xr-x 200079/1 0 Feb 3 01:20 2010 flash_player_10_solaris_r45_2_x86/
        -rwxr-xr-x 200079/1 10847132 Feb 3 01:20 2010 flash_player_10_solaris_r45_2_x86/libflashplayer.so

        >Also, the update is missing from the OpenSolaris extra repository:
        ># pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash

        Extras is still shipping the broken version:
        # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
        Version: 10.0.42.34

        Have the Solaris marketing wonks set up an announcement mailing list
        for that repository?
        Might be helpful to notify customers when the repository will be down
        for maintenance and when updated and new bits are available from Oracle
        and its ISV partners.

        John
        groenveld@...
      • Alan Coopersmith
        ... Like all IPS repositories, if you go to it in a web browser you should see an RSS feed icon for automated package update notification. -- -Alan
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 17, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          John D Groenveld wrote:
          >> Also, the update is missing from the OpenSolaris extra repository:
          >> # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash
          >
          > Extras is still shipping the broken version:
          > # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
          > Version: 10.0.42.34
          >
          > Have the Solaris marketing wonks set up an announcement mailing list
          > for that repository?

          Like all IPS repositories, if you go to it in a web browser you should
          see an RSS feed icon for automated package update notification.

          --
          -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@...
          Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
        • John D Groenveld
          In message , John D Groenveld wr ... On a related topic, via Martin Paul s pca I noticed that this evening s
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 23, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            In message <201002171929.o1HJT5Qv026614@...>, John D Groenveld wr
            ites:
            >Extras is still shipping the broken version:
            ># pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
            > Version: 10.0.42.34

            On a related topic, via Martin Paul's pca I noticed that this evening's
            patchdiag.xref includes Patch-ID# 120186-20 which includes some
            security fixes for SUNWstaroffice*, StarOffice v8 for Solaris 10
            and previous.
            Why was there no SunAlert issued for BugID 6898803 and friends?
            <URL:http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-277690-1>


            Also is the Indiana repository going to be updated with a fixed OpenOffice?
            # pkg info -r openoffice|grep Version
            Version: 3.1.0
            Will there be a fixed OpenOffice in time for OpenSolaris 2010-03?

            BTW v3.2 can fetched from Al Hopper's GenUNIX.ORG
            John
            groenveld@...
          • Alan Coopersmith
            ... OpenOffice 3.2 is on the list of package updates planned for the pkg repo for the 2010.03 release. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 23, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              John D Groenveld wrote:
              > Also is the Indiana repository going to be updated with a fixed OpenOffice?
              > # pkg info -r openoffice|grep Version
              > Version: 3.1.0
              > Will there be a fixed OpenOffice in time for OpenSolaris 2010-03?

              OpenOffice 3.2 is on the list of package updates planned for the pkg repo
              for the 2010.03 release.

              --
              -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@...
              Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
            • Mike Riley
              ... Not all bugs get Sun Alerts. There are various criteria they use to determine if one should be written. One being that a large number of people will see
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                John D Groenveld wrote:
                >
                >
                > In message <201002171929.o1HJT5Qv026614@...
                > <mailto:201002171929.o1HJT5Qv026614%40elvis.arl.psu.edu>>, John D
                > Groenveld wr
                > ites:
                > >Extras is still shipping the broken version:
                > ># pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
                > > Version: 10.0.42.34
                >
                > On a related topic, via Martin Paul's pca I noticed that this evening's
                > patchdiag.xref includes Patch-ID# 120186-20 which includes some
                > security fixes for SUNWstaroffice*, StarOffice v8 for Solaris 10
                > and previous.
                > Why was there no SunAlert issued for BugID 6898803 and friends?
                > <URL:http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-277690-1
                > <http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-277690-1>>

                Not all bugs get Sun Alerts. There are various criteria they use to
                determine if one should be written. One being that a large number of
                people will see it. Another is that it must be reported by a certain
                number of customers. These must not have met one of those criteria.

                Mike
              • John D Groenveld
                ... Years ago I subscribed to Bugtraq. I noticed that every two-bit Linux distribution insisted on spewing their BugIDs for which ever piece of FOSS that was
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  In message <4B8564FB.3080409@...>, Mike Riley writes:
                  >Not all bugs get Sun Alerts. There are various criteria they use to
                  >determine if one should be written. One being that a large number of
                  >people will see it. Another is that it must be reported by a certain
                  >number of customers. These must not have met one of those criteria.

                  Years ago I subscribed to Bugtraq.
                  I noticed that every two-bit Linux distribution insisted on spewing
                  their BugIDs for which ever piece of FOSS that was the vulnerability
                  of the day.
                  I found the "me-too's" to be a bit annoying at the time but then
                  came to see that the marketing amateurs were projecting an image
                  of their projects as things to be taken seriously.

                  After Scott McNealy and company bought StarDivision there was
                  a lot of talk about StarOffice (and later the open source and
                  open standards, OpenOffice) being a credible threat to Microsoft's
                  Windows and Office recurring income stream.
                  Sadly, StarOffice (and Mozilla) support for Solaris x86 portended
                  Solaris x86's eventual "indefinite delay."

                  Does the Support stovepipe that issues SunAlerts for the Solaris
                  system stack want customers to view it as a serious volume solution?
                  If not customers, does it want to be taken seriously by their
                  new masters in Larry Ellison and company's executive shark tank.

                  John
                  groenveld@...
                • Mike Riley
                  ... Was that a complaint about the policy, or a complement? If I recall some of the criteria was: 1) Are there 3 or more customers reporting the bug? This is
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    John D Groenveld wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > In message <4B8564FB.3080409@...
                    > <mailto:4B8564FB.3080409%40cox.net>>, Mike Riley writes:
                    > >Not all bugs get Sun Alerts. There are various criteria they use to
                    > >determine if one should be written. One being that a large number of
                    > >people will see it. Another is that it must be reported by a certain
                    > >number of customers. These must not have met one of those criteria.
                    >
                    > Years ago I subscribed to Bugtraq.
                    > I noticed that every two-bit Linux distribution insisted on spewing
                    > their BugIDs for which ever piece of FOSS that was the vulnerability
                    > of the day.
                    > I found the "me-too's" to be a bit annoying at the time but then
                    > came to see that the marketing amateurs were projecting an image
                    > of their projects as things to be taken seriously.
                    >
                    > After Scott McNealy and company bought StarDivision there was
                    > a lot of talk about StarOffice (and later the open source and
                    > open standards, OpenOffice) being a credible threat to Microsoft's
                    > Windows and Office recurring income stream.
                    > Sadly, StarOffice (and Mozilla) support for Solaris x86 portended
                    > Solaris x86's eventual "indefinite delay."
                    >
                    > Does the Support stovepipe that issues SunAlerts for the Solaris
                    > system stack want customers to view it as a serious volume solution?
                    > If not customers, does it want to be taken seriously by their
                    > new masters in Larry Ellison and company's executive shark tank.

                    Was that a complaint about the policy, or a complement?

                    If I recall some of the criteria was:

                    1) Are there 3 or more customers reporting the bug? This is why it is
                    important to file bug reports and especially to get your name added to an
                    existing bug. I may be off on the number, it might be a bit higher.

                    2) Does it cause a system crash/hang/denial of service issue, and are a
                    large number of customers likely to run into it?

                    3) For security issues, is an exploit available that can use the defect to
                    cause a security breach?

                    There are probably a couple of others that I forgot, but you get the idea.
                    It has been almost 2 years since I had to worry about one.

                    They are designed to give an early heads up to larger customers at the
                    time a problem is identified that might affect them. They get released to
                    everyone once a fix is available, but only the customers paying extra for
                    the early notification get the initial releases with workarounds or
                    T-patch info.
                  • John D Groenveld
                    In message , John D Groenveld wr ... Fixed. # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver Version: 10.0.45.2
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 27, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In message <201002171929.o1HJT5Qv026614@...>, John D Groenveld wr
                      ites:
                      >Extras is still shipping the broken version:

                      Fixed.
                      # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
                      Version: 10.0.45.2

                      There's also an updated VirtualBox package on Extras.

                      John
                      groenveld@...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.