On 07/18/2010 09:41 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 18 July 2010 09:13 PM, JD wrote: >> On 07/18/2010 08:56 PM, David wrote: >>> On 7/18/2010 11:44 PM, JD wrote: >>>> On 07/18/2010 08:22 PM, David wrote: >>>>> On 7/18/2010 11:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Firefox looks for plugins in /firefox/plugins. Which is where ever you >>>>> put it. Perhaps /home/<user_name>/firefox/plugins? >>>> Not so. >>>> My flash plugin is in >>>> $ ls -l /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so >>>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 skroot root 39 Jun 25 12:36 >>>> /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so -> >>>> /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so >>>> >>>> Firefox does not search /usr/lib/flash-plugin/ >>>> It searches /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins >>>> >>>> However, you are free to put the plugins in your home dir path, such as >>>> >>>> ~/.mozilla/firefox/plugins/ >>>> or >>>> ~/.mozilla/firefox/your-profile-name/plugins >>> The Firefox that this person wants to use is the package from Mozilla >>> not the package from Fedora. The package that Fedora provides looks in >>> /usr/lib mozilla/plugins, as you wrote, and also in >>> /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins on 64 bit systems. >> Not 100% correct. >> I AM using the vanilla binary tarball from mozilla.com >> and not the fedora distributed rpm. >> So, I am not having any issues with any of my plugins >> in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. The mozilla.com's FF binary has >> no trouble finding the plugins. >>> Mozilla says to use /firefox/plugins. Would using Fedora's directories >>> work? Maybe. I don't know because I just followed Mozilla's directions, >>> it is their program after all, and have had no problems over the years. >> You know, some of those "directions" are >> probably ancient and have not been updated, >> ans so, they have kept the code in FF to also search >> /firefox/plugins. >> Also, how come the vanilla binary from mozilla.com >> does not create /firefox/plugins when you untar the >> tarball as root? >> I have never used /firefox/plugins >> I have no plugins in my home directory. >> > These are the installed plugins on my system. > > $ lt ~/.mozilla/plugins/ > total 8.0K > drwx------. 2 jallad jallad 4.0K May 28 10:15 moonlight > drwxrwxr-x. 2 jallad jallad 4.0K May 28 10:15 QuakeLive > $ lt /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ > total 0 > $ lt /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/ > total 9.6M > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 90K May 18 09:15 gecko-mediaplayer-qt.so > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 90K May 18 09:15 gecko-mediaplayer-wmp.so > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 89K May 18 09:15 gecko-mediaplayer-rm.so > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 89K May 18 09:15 gecko-mediaplayer-dvx.so > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 91K May 18 09:15 gecko-mediaplayer.so > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 9.2M May 29 14:19 > .so > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 5.2K Jun 1 07:30 > librhythmbox-itms-detection-plugin.so > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 41 Jun 16 10:26 libjavaplugin.so -> > /etc/alternatives/libjavaplugin.so.x86_64 > > In firefox I see the moonlight and QuaLive plugins disabled since they > are not compatible with FF4.0b. However they are not listed under > plugins, instead they show up as disabled extensions. And none of my > system-wide plugins are available to me. My about:plugins page is > completely empty! Strange. Only actual extensions that show up as disabled for me are forecastfox and requestpolicy. > Hope this describes my situation clearly. > I ran on FC7-64 bit for a couple of years until I got sick of the issue of plugins, most of which were for 32 bit architectures. Wrappers were a hassle and did not always work with all plugins. So, I switched to 32 bit, and all has been well as far as plugins are concerned. So, you must have installed the 64 bit tarball (per link I saw in an earlier post), right? Well, you can still install the 32 bit flash plugins from Adobe, but you will have to also install flash plugin wrapper. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
