[Bug 1313] Review Request : lightspark - An alternative Flash Player implementation

(In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #23) > > (In reply to comment #22) > > > > > This is irrelevant here, you use flashblock or whatever the equivalent is on > > > other browsers. > > > > To give some context, I'm coming from a University setting with 1000+ Fedora > > workstations and over 3000 users. > > > > Gnash is out of the question for us (stability and support costs) but we are > > finding lightspark promising. Flashblock etc. isn't really an option for us > > either as it asks things of the users. > > > > Easy enough for us to patch out the gnash requirement and put it in a local > > repo though. > > > > Just giving a different perspective. > > > > Gnash is necessary for complete youtube support since lightspark doesn't > support avm1 swfs. > > We can remove gnash from the requirements, but then you will have to install it > manually to have full youtube support. I agree it shouldn't depend on it. I removed gnash long ago as its a CPU hog. If the person wants open flash support for older videos its likely they'll already have it installed.