| 1 |
2007/7/16, Daniel <danstemporaryaccount@×××××.ca>: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On July 15, 2007 03:09:41 pm »Q« wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I emerged netscape-flash-9.0.48.0 before it was masked. I assume that |
| 5 |
> > emerge got the correct tarball, else it would have been caught by the |
| 6 |
> > checksum checking, and because about:plugins in Firefox says |
| 7 |
> > "File name: libflashplayer.so Shockwave Flash 9.0 r48". |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I guess I'm seeking reassurance that my understanding is correct, that |
| 10 |
> > I have the version with the vulnerability fixed. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I can't tell you if you've got the "right" one, but I can warn you not to |
| 13 |
> un-merge it... there doesn't appear to be a replacement available just |
| 14 |
> yet :-) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
I've uninstall netscape-flash because of a problem with files in my |
| 19 |
~/.mozilla/plugins/ but, now it's hard masked, do I (we) have to use the |
| 20 |
media-libs/libflash instead ? |
| 21 |
thx for advice |
Archives