On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 09:18:16AM +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > > > > - The package says it is downloading the file (even though squid does not > > log anything), > > It uses wget to download. I'm not sure about logging in squid.
Assuming that it uses a http:// URL, all downloads should go through squid at my site, including a transparent proxy at the router in case people try not to use a proxy. So if it actually even tried to download anything, there should be something (at least a 404 or something) logged by squid here. Sorry for the missing detail. > > then after a while a second screen appears and tells the > > user again that the file cannot be located. > > This means that the download failed for some reason. Was networking up? > Maybe a temporary problem at the download site? I have tried upgrading > from flash 7 to 9 just now, and it works. I tried both 9.0.21.55.2 and > 9.0.21.55.3. Yes, networking was up at the time. Assuming that the package's scripts do not reset $http_proxy, all downloads should be logged by squid on the localhost (and even if it for some reason reset http_proxy, the squid on the transparent proxy should have logged the download), so it appears to me that for some unknown reason it did not actually try to do the download. > > This time, it specifically > > asks the user "Have you already downloaded the > > install_flash_player_7_linux.tar.gz package from Macromedia?" (Note the > > file name... > > Here dpkg tries to fall back on the previous flash package. That > message is from a previous flashplugin-nonfree version. This is confusing because I did have the file downloaded about a year ago, so if it really tried to fall back on the previous version, it should have found the file it tries to the previous version in the directory specified, and then proceed without any error messages. So there must have been something OTHER than a download problem going on here. I guess this looks like my apt is somehow half broken and is affecting the flash plugin's installation scripts; I wonder if there is some way to bump up apt's verbosity and log errors somewhere... :-( [stuff deleted] > My impression is that the "grave" severity was correct for 9.0.21.55.2. > I'm not sure whether there's still something "grave" wrong in > 9.0.21.55.3. Therefor I will lower the severity of this bug to > "important", to allow 9.0.21.55.3 to enter testing, and to allow further > discussion of this bug to see if anything remaining is to be fixed in > 9.0.21.55.3. > > Thanks for the testing and bug reporting, Thanks for the explanation and suggestion. I'll check out 9.0.21.55.3. Best regards, -- Ambrose Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto +1 416 292 9293 http://www.cccgt.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
