Flash plugin

flash-player-propertiesLatest Adobe Flash plugin package for supported Fedora and RHEL/CentOS distributions.

Table of Contents

Package information

This package tries to comply as maximum to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines; this means the packages has debuginfo packages, default Fedora’s GCC compile time options (where possible) and standard locations for binaries, data and docs.

Features:

  • Separate Control Center integration package for the native architecture (64 bit/32 bit).
  • No copying of the plugin around the filesystem after the package is installed; installation in the original Adobe package is all done in %post section!
  • 32 bit plugin can also be installed along the 64 bit one in a 64 bit environment; this is useful for example with the 32 bit Steam client or 32 bit browsers.

Supported distributions:

  • RHEL/CentOS – i686/x86_64
  • Fedora – i686/x86_64

Installation

To install the repository on a supported Fedora 22+ distribution, run as root the following command:

# dnf config-manager --add-repo=https://negativo17.org/repos/fedora-flash-plugin.repo

For installation on CentOS and Redhat Enterprise Linux:

# yum-config-manager --add-repo=https://negativo17.org/repos/epel-flash-plugin.repo

Then, to install the plugin, perform the following commands:

# yum -y install flash-plugin
# setsebool -P unconfined_mozilla_plugin_transition=off

If you are on a 64 bit system and would like to have the 32 bit plugin as well, launch the following command:

# yum -y install flash-plugin.i686

For the control center, install the flash-plugin-properties package.

Bugs

The address for contacting me is in the package’s changelog.

41 thoughts to “Flash plugin”

  4. please, what is “setsebool -P unconfined_mozilla_plugin_transition=off” for? could you please explain it in your in installation instructions? Cheers

    Reply

        1. Sorry, I’m not interested in packaging Flash plugin for Chromium. The way Chromium is packaged:

          https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=8686392

          it bundles almost all required libraries that are required for it to run. With the same approach, just add the Flash plugin and you have the normal Google Chrome. So what’s the point of Chromium? Compiler flags? Just run Chrome 🙂

          Also, if you install both with one command, this means you require the user to have both browsers installed. I don’t, and don’t want, sorry.

          Reply

          2. it’s a matter of trust. Chrome source may differ, Chromium is fully opensource. That also why we like our OS not to be proprietary. Thanks anyway 🙂

    1. Well, the old one is still being updated for security fixes, I don’t know if the beta one just gets updated once in a while or whenever there’s a security fix to apply. Also, originally the beta had onlye the shared object library (the plugin itself) and was missing all the other components, but I see that is not the case with version 24.0.0.154.
      Anyway I’ve build it for Fedora 25 now, if it works properly I will also push it to the other branches.

      Reply

      1. so please, if using the instructions in your above article in Fedora 25 which plugin will I install? New one or old one?

        Reply

          2. I’ve made a typo in the spec file, the binary blobs were swapped between 32 and 64 bit; it’s now fixed.

            Shockwave Flash

            File: libflashplayer.so
            Path: /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
            Version:
            State: Enabled
            Shockwave Flash 24.0 d0

          3. Btw, I tested it also on the other Fedora and CentOS 7 release and it works fine, I’m pushing it everywhere.

          4. flash-plugin-1:24.0.0.154-2.fc25.x86_64 works for me now, thanks!

            There was one strange message from DNF when updating though:

            flash-plugin-1:24.0.0.154-1.fc25.x86_64 was supposed to be removed but is not!

            I had to manually remove flash-plugin-1:24.0.0.154-1.fc25.x86_64.

  7. 11.2.202.643 is out. You’re currently providing the .637 version. Please what’s the difference between your repository and adobe one? Thanks

    Reply

    1. Sorry, I’ve built the packages but forgot to push them before leaving for this week of holiday. Build uploading now.
      Difference is in the packaging. The Adobe one is terrible, and it’s used to accomodate any RPM based distro.

      Compare the two RPMs with rpm -qp --scripts package.rpm and you will see the difference yourself.

      Reply

      1. hey, no need to be sorry.. I was just wondering what happened. Thanks for your work and hope you could spend some good time on holiday. In the mean time I thought about using pipelight, which provides the windows (and 32bit) version of the flash plugin. I’m not a power user so I lack a lot of knowledge but I was thinking that using a window version “socketed” for Linux should be less exploitable (starting point is installing flash compromise your computer security) because of eventual attacker not knowing there’s a Linux machine behind. Other advantage is this plugin is easily updatable (there’s a pipelight-plugin –update comman). Let’s not forget the window version should have more features (DRM?). Well, I write all of these because I was wondering about your opinion. Again, thank you for your work

        Reply

      2. Just worry that even if packaged terribly it will provide me secuiry updates quicker than yours. Nothing wrong, we truly appreciate your work but flash is such a critical component for any system and I feel already bad just for installing it 🙂 I hope Adobe package won’t bork the system. Cheers

        Reply

    1. Just read the instructions. Fedora 25 was not listed, but it has been enabled for a few months; I’ve updated the page.

      Reply

    1. Nothing wrong with the automation. The package is not “generated” as soon as Adobe is releasing a new version, but rather when I’m updating the git part of it, like in Fedora or any other project:

      https://github.com/negativo17/flash-plugin

      Feel free to create merge requests for the packages. I’m updating it today, btw.

      Reply

  12. No, I have it automated, but the tarballs for Flash Plugin always have the same name and there is no versioning in the files; so even if you automate it you need to make sure that the tarballs are deleted and new hashes for them are set.

    I’m reorganizing things up a bit (takes time, and I don’t have much) to have private instances of COPR and Pagure as I’m not allowed to use Fedora’s own COPR and Koji to build non-free packages.

    Reply

  13. dnf info flash-plugin
    Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:36 ago on Thu Mar 24 16:54:34 2016.
    Installierte Pakete
    Name : flash-plugin
    Arch : x86_64
    Epoch : 1
    Version : 11.2.202.577
    Release : 1.fc23
    Größe : 18 M
    Paketquelle : @System
    Aus Paketqu : fedora-flash-plugin

    Firefox about:addons and https://helpx.adobe.com/de/flash-player.html
    says it is only 11.2.202.569 and blocks flash.

    What is wrong?

    Rgds
    AW

    Reply

    1. My mistake, fixed build coming. I mismatched tarballs, as they always have the same name.
      New builds coming in minutes.

      Reply

      1. You do it manually?

        Why not automate it with scripts? Bash, LUA, Ruby, Python, Perl …..

        As I unterstand it is a an ordinary process, always the same. Fetching the tarballs etc. ……

        Are you doing all yr packetizing work manually? Why not develop an enigne for this?

        Are Fedora package maintainers doing it all manually?

        Reply

  14. i’ve been getting crashes when using fullscreen. It forces me to go back to the login manager, and log in again.

    Reply

  15. Hi

    Are you sure that you packaged 11.2.202.508? http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ says 11,2,202,491 installed

    I can find only one string “508” with ghex /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so. But a lot of strings “491”!

    Please recheck latest Adobe Flash plugin package.

    May be I have a problem with migration from yum to dnf.
    flash-plugin-11.2.202.491-1.fc21.x86_64 found in DNFDB; skipping with “dnf-2 migrate”

    What is it? An error in packaging? Or in migration to dnf?

    Rgds
    AW

    Reply

Leave a Reply