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

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1313





--- Comment #26 from Hicham HAOUARI <hicham.haouari at gmail.com>  2010-08-01 22:19:22 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (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. 
> 

Ok, no problem, since rpm doesn't support recommends.


Off Topic : gnash may end up in rpmfusion too to properly support hwaccel in
0.8.8 with the introduction of vaapi.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.