Latest Adobe Flash plugin package for supported Fedora and RHEL/CentOS distributions.
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.
- 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.
- RHEL/CentOS – i686/x86_64
- Fedora – i686/x86_64
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
The address for contacting me is in the package’s changelog.
41 thoughts to “Flash plugin”
It looks like you forgot to sign the latest flash-plugin packages.
Thanks. I had an issue during the repo generation. Re-synced now.
New version available
is “setsebool -P unconfined_mozilla_plugin_transition=off” still necessary?
please, what is “setsebool -P unconfined_mozilla_plugin_transition=off” for? could you please explain it in your in installation instructions? Cheers
Do you think it’s possible to make a package for flash for chromium ?
Any thought on this ?
If it’s possible I think it could be great to install both flash NPAPI and PPAPI when doing “dnf install flash-plugin”.
Sorry, I’m not interested in packaging Flash plugin for Chromium. The way Chromium is packaged:
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.
Ok no problem 🙂 Thank you.
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 🙂
Adobe released a while ago a new and updated flash plugin for both NPAPI and PPAPI, version 24 beta. Even includes debuggers. 11.x is so very old and no security updates. What are your thoughts on providing the latest?
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 22.214.171.124.
Anyway I’ve build it for Fedora 25 now, if it works properly I will also push it to the other branches.
so please, if using the instructions in your above article in Fedora 25 which plugin will I install? New one or old one?
The new one (24.x) just for Fedora 25. If it works properly I will push it also to the other repositories.
Just installed it and Firefox does not seem to see it at all 🙁 Fedora 25, MATE, Firefox 50.
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 24.0 d0
Btw, I tested it also on the other Fedora and CentOS 7 release and it works fine, I’m pushing it everywhere.
flash-plugin-1:126.96.36.199-2.fc25.x86_64 works for me now, thanks!
There was one strange message from DNF when updating though:
flash-plugin-1:188.8.131.52-1.fc25.x86_64 was supposed to be removed but is not!
I had to manually remove flash-plugin-1:184.108.40.206-1.fc25.x86_64.
220.127.116.113 is out. You’re currently providing the .637 version. Please what’s the difference between your repository and adobe one? Thanks
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.rpmand you will see the difference yourself.
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
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
hi, please how can I install it on Fedora 25?
Just read the instructions. Fedora 25 was not listed, but it has been enabled for a few months; I’ve updated the page.
Great Job ! Works like a charm.
New version 18.104.22.1682 available
I’ve been away for a few days, uploading it now. Thanks.
please update to 22.214.171.1246. something wrong with the automation?
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:
Feel free to create merge requests for the packages. I’m updating it today, btw.
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.
dnf info flash-plugin
Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:36 ago on Thu Mar 24 16:54:34 2016.
Name : flash-plugin
Arch : x86_64
Epoch : 1
Version : 126.96.36.1997
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 188.8.131.529 and blocks flash.
What is wrong?
My mistake, fixed build coming. I mismatched tarballs, as they always have the same name.
New builds coming in minutes.
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?
i’ve been getting crashes when using fullscreen. It forces me to go back to the login manager, and log in again.
Are you sure that you packaged 184.108.40.2068? 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-220.127.116.111-1.fc21.x86_64 found in DNFDB; skipping with “dnf-2 migrate”
What is it? An error in packaging? Or in migration to dnf?
Error on my side. Uploading fixed package now, thanks.
once again an update for flash is out to Flash-Version 18.104.22.1681.
Please adjust your repo.
Please update. Thanks.
Critical update is out 22.214.171.1241
Please update. Thanks.
Version 126.96.36.1995 is out. Firefox is complaining that current version is vulnerable.
Uploading it now, thanks.