Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?

[Joshua Judson Rosen]

Benjamin Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen
> <rozzin at geekspace.com> wrote:
> > What's wrong with the `flashplugin-nonfree' package that Debian has
> > in lenny-backports?
> 
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > They conveniently kept a
> > current release packaged in a "real" Debian package, not the
> > download-an-executable-installer-for-you package one gets elsewhere.

OK, but why is that a problem? You didn't say, so my question
remains unanswered.

I don't even understand how/why the word "conveniently" is supposed
to apply, here--how do you, as an end user, even see any difference?

And maybe I'm parsing "download-an-executable-installer-for-you package"
wrong, or maybe you've parsed something wrong--are you objecting
to the Debian package containing an exectuable postinst script
(which is normal for Debian packages), or do you think that the
postinst script is downloading an executable installer and then
running that (it's not)? Or is it something else?

And, regardless--whatever you think the issue is--why is it an issue?

-- 
"Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."