Key New Features Ubiquitous Reach Easily installable and updateable, the full Flash Player will be available on smartphones and other Internet-connected mobile devices, doubling the number of operating systems your content can reach and enabling uncompromised Web browsing experiences. Global error handling The new global error handler enables developers to write a single handler to process all runtime errors that weren’t part of a try/catch statement. Improve application reliability and user experience by catching and handling unexpected runtime errors and present custom error messages. Hardware video decoding (h262)
Neat... Where's the 64b version for linux?
Hm.. I just found out that it even does not support video acceleration under Linux: the 64-bit build isn't yet available so those users will need to be use the earlier 64-bit beta. One of the main features for Flash Player 10.1 is H.264 hardware video acceleration support, which is sadly missing from the Linux version. Therefore, forget about that beta version. I don't see any reason why should we try it.
(In reply to comment #2) > Therefore, forget about that beta version. I don't see any reason why should we > try it. Agreed. But thanks for the heads-up anyway, and don't hesitate to bug me again if a better quality beta for Linux appears!
> Agreed. But thanks for the heads-up anyway, and don't hesitate to bug me again > if a better quality beta for Linux appears! > The latest builds have 64bit support and support acceleration in linux. I am currently running it under ubuntu. Might be time to reconsider
Flash Player 10.1 Beta 2 is out.
(In reply to comment #4) > I am > currently running it under ubuntu. Might be time to reconsider > from a changelog: In Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under Linux and Mac OS. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs. We will continue to evaluate adding the feature to Linux and Mac OS in future releases. The only reason I see we should bump it is a security fix described by: http://flashcrash.dempsky.org/ CVE-2008-4546
(In reply to comment #4) > The latest builds have 64bit support and support acceleration in linux. I am > currently running it under ubuntu. Might be time to reconsider In addition to what Anton mentioned about H.264 acceleration, the latest 10.1 beta also does *not* have native 64-bit support. From Adobe's site: --- When will 64-bit versions of Flash Player 10.1 be available? The 64-bit versions of Flash Player will not be in the initial release of Flash Player 10.1. We remain committed to bringing native 64-bit Flash Player to Windows and Mac in future, in addition to the currently available 64-bit alpha version of Flash Player 10 for Linux. --- I think any revbump that got *rid* of native 64-bit support would be a step backwards, and I'm not interested in supporting that. (In reply to comment #6) > The only reason I see we should bump it is a security fix described by: > http://flashcrash.dempsky.org/ > CVE-2008-4546 This would indeed be a compelling argument, since the latest 10.0 release still suffers from this bug, but the native 64-bit issue is my main concern. That said, if someone else wants to do up and ebuild for 10.1, I may consider proxy-maintaining it, though I will leave it hard-masked until a native 64-bit version is available.
(In reply to comment #7) > This would indeed be a compelling argument, since the latest 10.0 release still > suffers from this bug, but the native 64-bit issue is my main concern. The new version 10.0.45.2 is in the tree to address the security bug. I'm closing this bug until a better version, sorry for bothering.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > This would indeed be a compelling argument, since the latest 10.0 release still > > suffers from this bug, but the native 64-bit issue is my main concern. > > The new version 10.0.45.2 is in the tree to address the security bug. > I'm closing this bug until a better version, sorry for bothering. No bother at all, especially because 10.0.45.2 does *not* address this particular (CVE-2008-4546) bug! It addresses some other problems, but I'm still able to crash my browser with 10.0.45.2 and the 'flashcrash' site. 10.0.45.2 specifically addresses the issues outlined here: http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb10-06.html And no others. As far as I know the only version of flash that addresses CVE-2008-4546 is the 10.1 beta. I'm very hopeful Adobe goes to 10.1 releases soon (and hopefully a native 64-bit version at the time, too!).
I know this bug is marked as RESOLVED WONT, but I wanted to comment that the latest flash 10.1 prerelease is out (version 10.1.51.95). Still not hardware acceleration support for Linux and OSX, but it does tout other performance enhancements. Personally I would love to see flash 10.1 run as smoothly in Linux as it does in Windows (minus any hardware acceleration).
(In reply to comment #10) > I know this bug is marked as RESOLVED WONT, but I wanted to comment that the > latest flash 10.1 prerelease is out (version 10.1.51.95). Still not hardware > acceleration support for Linux and OSX, but it does tout other performance > enhancements. This is good, please keep updating this bug as new releases come out... especially if a 64-bit version comes out too! > Personally I would love to see flash 10.1 run as smoothly in Linux as it does > in Windows (minus any hardware acceleration). Does 10.1 truly run more smoothly than 10.0? How about on a 64-bit platform using nspluginwrapper - is 10.1 actually better there? As I've mentioned before, I don't have time to devote support to a 32-bit only version of flash, since I think it's a step backwards. But I would like to reiterate that if you (or any other interested user) writes an ebuild for these beta releases, I would be willing to proxy-maintain any such ebuild (hard-masked in the tree, probably, but *in* the tree). Also, if it's not as obviously backwards as I assume, and 10.1 inside nspluginwrapper is demonstrably better and/or more stable that the native 64-bit 10.0, I'd more actively consider it for inclusion in the tree. In other words, feel free to keep the discussion going on this bug!
*** Bug 307553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 232285 [details] www-plugins/adobe-flash-10.1.53.38 ebuild This is an ebuild for RC4 of Adobe Flash 10.1. It has a minor issue in that it is missing a readme.txt file, but aside from that, it should work well in a local overlay.
Flash 10.1 RC4 is out. Considering that many people want the hardware acceleration improvements that it brings, it might be a good idea to put Flash 10.1 in sunrise at the very least.
Any 64 bit yet?
(In reply to comment #15) > Any 64 bit yet? > As far as I know, a 64-bit version will not be forthcoming until the 32-bit version goes gold.
(In reply to comment #14) Thanks Richard. RC5 is out as well, however the release notes (see pdf, known issues) still shows that the hardware acceleration is not supported under Linux and Mac. Also, the they keep changing .tar.gz context format so I suggest to wait for the release version before wasting our time on writing an ebuild.
Here is the opened bug report with the request: Support GPU Acceleration on Linux via VA-API https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FP-3146 It might be too late fixing it anyways because HTML5 is hitting the web.
(In reply to comment #18) > Here is the opened bug report with the request: > Support GPU Acceleration on Linux via VA-API > https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FP-3146 > > It might be too late fixing it anyways because HTML5 is hitting the web. > In that case, it might be a good idea to change the status of this bug to UPSTREAM.
This is now a security issue. There is a major security hole affecting all versions of flash prior to 10.1: http://www.adobe.com/support/security/advisories/apsa10-01.html
(In reply to comment #20) > This is now a security issue. I guess we have to leave with it, see the comment #9 about CVE-2008-4546. Adobe has to release either 10.x bug fix version or stabilize slot 10.1, including 64bit. The best what gentoo dev could do is to mask adobe-flash completely, like they use to do it with buggy vendors.
> The best what gentoo dev could do is to mask adobe-flash completely, like they > use to do it with buggy vendors. Does this mean that the Gentoo Foundation will begin promoting gnash in place of adobe flash like it is already promoting OpenJDK/IcedTea in place of Sun's JDK? If that happens, I imagine that Richard Stallman would be pleased.
*** Bug 322947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #21) > Adobe has to release either 10.x bug fix version or stabilize slot 10.1, > including 64bit. Exactly. I sure hope they do one or the other soon. (In reply to comment #22) > > The best what gentoo dev could do is to mask adobe-flash completely, like they > > use to do it with buggy vendors. > > Does this mean that the Gentoo Foundation will begin promoting gnash in place > of adobe flash like it is already promoting OpenJDK/IcedTea in place of Sun's > JDK? I can't speak for the Gentoo Foundation, but as the developer who maintains the adobe-flash ebuild, I don't think I can do that until gnash actually works on enough sites to make it a viable alternative. I really applaud the gnash folks and sincerely hope that some day it will replace adobe-flash. With respect to the (ongoing) security issues, this is *precisely* the reason I have this ewarn text in the adobe-flash ebuild: ewarn "Flash player is closed-source, with a long history of security" ewarn "issues. Please consider only running flash applets you know to" ewarn "be safe. The 'flashblock' extension may help for mozilla users:" ewarn " https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433" I think that's enough of a warning for users who care, without being an inconvenience to users who don't care.
Created attachment 234461 [details] Adobe Flash 10.1 RC7 ebuild (32-bit x86 only) I am attaching an updated ebuild for Adobe Flash 10.1 RC7.
version 10.1 has been released, however I don't see a separate 64bit binary for any OS. Here are direct download links: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386.rpm http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_10_linux.tar.gz
(In reply to comment #26) > version 10.1 has been released, however I don't see a separate 64bit binary for > any OS. > > Here are direct download links: > > http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386.rpm > http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_10_linux.tar.gz > The version numbers suggest that rc7 became the gold release. You can use the ebuild I posted to install it. It still has the original problem that the README file is missing. I could not find an updated README file for 10.1, so I just left it like that.
It actually appears that Adobe has canned 64-bit releases for all platforms: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html?wtf
10.1.53.64 is in the tree (mainly for security reasons, see bug #322855). But you're not going to like it. My tests so far with a 64-bit browser and nspluginwrapper show nearly complete failure and browser hangs. It's in there for security reasons, but I've removed ~amd64 from the ebuild entirely, for now. Let's hope Adobe gets their stuff together and does a 64-bit release soon.
(In reply to comment #29) > 10.1.53.64 is in the tree (mainly for security reasons, see bug #322855). But > you're not going to like it. > > My tests so far with a 64-bit browser and nspluginwrapper show nearly complete > failure and browser hangs. It's in there for security reasons, but I've > removed ~amd64 from the ebuild entirely, for now. > > Let's hope Adobe gets their stuff together and does a 64-bit release soon. > Yea I tested it to... is useless:|
For your reference, I am tracking at least one of the issues with amd64 and adobe-flash-10.1 in bug #324365
