HOW-TO get Flash7 working!

Chuck Robey chuckr at
Thu Jan 10 18:09:05 PST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Started in -questions, but redirected to -ports with the change in
direction of discussion (you'll see).

Rudy wrote:
> Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
>>> rm /usr/ports/distfiles/flashplugin/
>> An other way to fix it in some ways is to run a make makesum to update
>> the distfile checksums
> The was an odd case were I felt more comfortable
> deleting it -- hadn't see that error before (and didn't save it to cut
> and paste).  I thought it was only my system, but apparently, others had
> this same issue with the file.  Maybe a new one was
> released with the same filename on adobe?
> Would "makesum" would blindly use what is in the /usr/ports/distfiles --
> corrupt, man-in-the-middled, or whatever was there?  I've never used
> makesum...  I will RTFM.  :)

I actually got the linux flash9 working.  Why didn't I post it, put in a
patch?  Because one of the main reasons that it doesn't work now is the
insane way that much Linux libraries are installed.  If folks would honor
hier(7) then  all linux libs would go into /usr/compat/usr/lib, but
instead, many linux ports (including browsers, believe me) install into
$(PREFIX)/lib/libsubdir.  This means every single linux app that uses linux
libs hsa to be run with a shell wrapper, artificially extending the
LD_LIBRARY_PATH.  Since no porter of an app installing libs knows all the
ports that might use their libs, random breakages are the rule of the day,
to say nothing of the egregious harm to security this kind of strategy
causes.  It's a big reason why the flash things don't work.  Want proof?
Go use the linux ldd to see just how long the list of libraries is, that
those extensions use, then  you'll begin to see.  Not all those libs are
browser products, either.  Have fun trying to get a wrapper to work there.

I volunteered to fix this situation all myself, if only the ports
management would give me written agreement that the strategy I decry is in
fact bad software practice, so that I may point to that document to port
authors, when I ask for permission to edit their work.  Ports management
hasn't seen fit to reply, or at least, I haven't seen it if they did.  I
don't intend to force anyone, but without having ports mangement backing, I
am NOT going to have this argument with every porter, no way.  I tried that
once, and at least one fellow told me he thought that requiring every linux
application to have it's own wrapper was the "cleaner" way to go.  Huh, if
that's so, then I guess I should be stopped anyhow.  You think that way?
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list