Flash 9 is an official release now. It is out of beta. Please remove it from package.mask. Thanks! Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. add net-www/netscape-flash ~x86 to package.keywords 2. emerge ">netscape-flash-9" 3. Actual Results: Get an error that it's masked since it's a beta. Expected Results: Successful emerge, after adding ~x86 to package.keywords for net-www/netscape-flash-9.
Created attachment 107246 [details] netscape-flash-9.0.31.0.ebuild Ebuild for netscape-flash-9.0.31.0 non-beta version. Note that it now does not include the standalone gflashplayer (neither in the package from adobe, nor from mirror://macromedia/ folks).
Created attachment 107263 [details] netscape-flash-9.0.31.0.ebuild Changed keywords to "-* ~amd64 ~x86", because let's face it, it's not like flash is going to run on any arch besides x86 and amd64. Otherwise, no change from the previously posted ebuild. This is something that should have happened in the existing ebuilds in Portage. Actually, about the only arch that could possibly be added is x86-fbsd, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
IMHO amd64 should be -, not ~, because there's no amd64 build yet.
(In reply to comment #3) > IMHO amd64 should be -, not ~, because there's no amd64 build yet. No; all amd64 processors can run x86 binaries. That's why we have emul-linux-x86-*. I have an amd64 system, and I am using netscape-flash in my www-client/firefox-bin. It works perfectly.
Shouldn't the amd64 section have nspluginwrapper as a dependency? Also, I see that ebuild uses their rpm, but simply extracting their tarball and copying libflashplayer.so and flashplayer.xpt to /opt/netscape/plugins worked fine for me.
(In reply to comment #5) > Shouldn't the amd64 section have nspluginwrapper as a dependency? No it shouldn't; people please stop this noise here...
> No it shouldn't; people please stop this noise here... I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "noise". Of course it would be great if there were pure amd64 builds for everything in portage but sadly that is not the case when it comes to binaries.
Created attachment 107266 [details] netscape-flash-9.0.31.0.ebuild Updated ebuild. I talked with jakub on IRC, and it turns out that the license prohibits us from distributing the package on the Gentoo mirror system, so I added the appropriate RESTRICT.
Its in the tree.. quit whining now!
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Shouldn't the amd64 section have nspluginwrapper as a dependency? > > No it shouldn't; people please stop this noise here... > Maybe add info about it to ebuild ?! Because it not work "out of box" :(
I almost put this in the security bug, but found this one at the last minute. :) Maybe I can't read the code correctly, but it LOOKS like BOTH the dev and ordinary versions get downloaded with -debug and ONLY the dev version for +debug. Maybe instead of: SRC_URI="!debug? ( http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/${MY_P}.tar.gz ) http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/updaters/9/${MY_PD}.tar.gz" it should read: SRC_URI="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/${MY_P}.tar.gz debug? ( http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/updaters/9/${MY_PD}.tar.gz )" Thanks
