| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joffer
Guru
Joined: 10 Sep 2002
Posts: 585
Location: Arendal, Norway
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: Any need for /opt/netscape/plugins/ ? |
 |
|
I'm on a AMD64 system (~amd64 actually), and have the usual browser trouble with java/flash/mplayerplug-in (which I'm fixing at the moment) to work flawless. I'm mostly a Opera user, but some packages depends on mozilla/firefox and thus I've got firefox installed as well, and wanting java/flash/mplayerplug-in in firefox too (when I occasionally use it) I've also installed firefox-bin. Then, to have movies (streaming etc) inside my browsers, I've installed mplayerplug-in-bin overlay from http://sh.nu/download/ebuilds/mplayer/ (3.11 at the moment).
Looking at the files installed by netscape-flash and mplayerplug-in(-bin) gives me a few headaches:
netscape-flash installes into /opt/netscape/plugins/, with symlinks to /usr/lib32/nsbrowser/plugins/
mplayerplug-in installs into /opt/netscape/plugins/ with symlinks to /usr/lib64/nsbrowser/plugins/
mplayerplug-in-bin installs into /opt/netscape/plugins with symlinks to /usr/lib/nsbrowser/plugins/ which again is a symlink to /usr/lib64/... (!!)
Is /opt/netscape/plugins/ hardcoded as a plugin location in opera and firefox(-bin)? Wouldn't it be better to have opera (32bit) and firefox-bin (32bit) use /usr/lib32/nsbrowser/plugins/ as default plugin location and /usr/lib64/nsbrowser/plugins/ for firefox (64bit) (and probably Konquer etc made for 64bit)? This would probably only be valid for a x86_64 system (ppc64 perhaps?) though, but it shouldn't be much of a change to the ebuilds to facilitate this.
This way we could be using 32bit plugins with 32bit browsers and 64bit plugins (not many at this time though) with 64bit browsers without mixing the different arches in the same folder. I would at least believe it would be a better way to install the plugins into the right lib32/lib64 folder and then symlink them to /opt/netscape/plugins/ instead of the other way around... (a x86 system would of course just use /usr/lib/nsbrowser/plugins/)
The bottom line - I don't see any use for /opt/netscape/plugins. (Or perhaps we should only link 32bit plugins into that folder).
Well, thats my view of things after much trouble with plugins and 32- AND 64-bit versions of things installed. Then again, I'm no linux expert or "the-gentoo-way" expert of doing things.. Any thoughts on my suggestiong or explanations why it is the way it is today?
_________________
As of April 2006 - Athlon64 X2 4200+ 1GB RAM - amd64-2006.0 profiled system with portage 2.1_preX, ck-sources-2.6.16, glibc-2.4-r1 (overlay w/-Bdirect&-hashvals), binutils-2.16.91.0.6 (overlay), gcc-4.1, Xorg 7 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LAj
Apprentice
Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 294
Location: Avellino[Italy]
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've build mozilla-firefox on amd64 and, of course, is not possible to use plugins!
There's another way to manage them, I think.
After the netscape-flash emerge there are:
in /opt/netscape/plugins/
- flashplayer.xpt
- libflashplayer.so
two link in /usr/lib32/nsbrowser/pluginsinoltre
trough these there're links in ~/.mozilla/plugins to the files
but about:plugins don't list them and I can't show flash content!
Moreover, I've the auto generated file ~/.mozilla/firefox/pluginreg.dat
with lines like( these lines are shown at about:plugins ):
| Code: | [PLUGINS]
/opt/sun-jre-bin-1.5.0.06-i586/jre1.5.0_06/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so:$
:$
11311659099000:1:13:$
49
0:application/x-java-vm:Java::$ |
I've installed Sun JVM, with its plugin link, but JVM selected is Blackdown becouse of some dependencies
I also linked to /usr/lib/nsbrowser/plugins
So I can't understand how the pluginreg.dat content is generated!
_________________
They produce notes of any size as their own properties askng interests also.This is seignorage and goes to privates banks(FED, BCE).You don't have to pay to use $$,you can simply use your notes recovering monetary sovereignty.Public debt is not right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nixnut
Bodhisattva
Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 10974
Location: the dutch mountains
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Gentoo Chat to Gentoo on AMD64.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered
talk is cheap. supply exceeds demand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emopig
Apprentice
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 188
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LAj wrote: | | I've build mozilla-firefox on amd64 and, of course, is not possible to use plugins! |
It is, there are just very few USEFUL 64 bit plugins due to the nature of the content rampantly and most commonly used throughout the web (WMV video, Realmedia/Realaudio, Flash)
There's another way to manage them, I think.
| LAj wrote: | | about:plugins don't list them and I can't show flash content! |
This is because libflashplayer.so is a 32 bit plugin and the Firefox you build is a 64 bit browser. You cannot use 32 bit plugins in a 64 bit browser (unless you use nspluginwrapper, which is rather unstable, see this thread for discussion)
| LAj wrote: | | I've installed Sun JVM, with its plugin link, but JVM selected is Blackdown becouse of some dependencies |
The 64 bit / AMD64 version of Sun's JVM doesn't come with a mozilla/netscape plugin, regardless of what what the ebuild or your USE flags say. the Blackdown JRE does however (I think)
| LAj wrote: | | I can't understand how the pluginreg.dat content is generated! |
I believe Firefox generates this file after searching all of it's plugin directories for plugins, probably so it can provide plugin metadata to other parts of the program, like MIME handling and about:plugins, atleast thats my guess...
I suggest you search around the forum or start a new thread to discuss you plugin woe's, this thread seems headed in a different direction, although the plugin path is probably part of your problem aswell...
_________________
2.6.35 / Gnome 2.30
Athlon64 3500+ / 1.5 GB / Asus A8N VM CSM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emopig
Apprentice
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 188
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: Any need for /opt/netscape/plugins/ ? |
|
|
| Joffer wrote: | | The bottom line - I don't see any use for /opt/netscape/plugins. (Or perhaps we should only link 32bit plugins into that folder). |
Yep, I totally agree that it is a mess. I've seen this mentioned by somebody before (maybe it was you)
I believe the reason they are placed in /opt is because according to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (OK, so according to Wikipedia) the directory is for "Static application software packages", in other words, snubbed binary blob's that we don't really 'trust'.
This is why most (all?) open source plugins go into the /usr/lib* directory but proprietary ones do not. It just so happens that most plugins are proprietary. Once again proprietary software causes problems for Linux/Open Source users. Now you can see why Microsoft implemented automatic redirection (I think using arch sensitive evaluation of environment variables in filesystem calls) to "C:\Program Files (x86)\" and to "C:\Windows\SysWoW64\" for 32 bit binaries on their 64 bit architectures, rather than leaving applications to decide for themselves.
Perhaps what is really needed is:
| Code: | /opt -> /opt64
/opt64
/opt32 |
although crowding up the root of the heirarchy isn't exactly appealing either. It already seems rather cramped, here's mine:
| Code: | . boot etc lib32 mnt proc service usr
.. dev home lib64 nonexistent root sys var
bin emul lib lost+found opt sbin tmp |
nonexistant really baffles me..(it's empty)
_________________
2.6.35 / Gnome 2.30
Athlon64 3500+ / 1.5 GB / Asus A8N VM CSM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LAj
Apprentice
Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 294
Location: Avellino[Italy]
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Emopig wrote: | This is because libflashplayer.so is a 32 bit plugin and the Firefox you build is a 64 bit browser. You cannot use 32 bit plugins in a 64 bit browser (unless you use nspluginwrapper, which is rather unstable, see this thread for discussion)
|
Why is not masked and added nspluginwrapper as a dependencies?
I'll go to read your link ...do you mean that I've to use mozilla-firefox-bin to see flash component on web?
_________________
They produce notes of any size as their own properties askng interests also.This is seignorage and goes to privates banks(FED, BCE).You don't have to pay to use $$,you can simply use your notes recovering monetary sovereignty.Public debt is not right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emopig
Apprentice
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 188
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LAj wrote: |
Why is not masked and added nspluginwrapper as a dependencies?
I'll go to read your link ...do you mean that I've to use mozilla-firefox-bin to see flash component on web? |
nspluginwrapper isn't a dependency because it isn't in portage, you have to install the ebuild manually as an overlay. it also wouldn't be 'correct' because it isn't actually required for firefox OR flash, it could happen if Firefox had a "plugins" or "flash" USE flag but it won't as everyone is waiting for a native 64bit flash version.
So yes, you need to emerge mozilla-firefox-bin to to see flash on the web.
_________________
2.6.35 / Gnome 2.30
Athlon64 3500+ / 1.5 GB / Asus A8N VM CSM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo on AMD64
