Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?

[Joshua Judson Rosen]

Benjamin Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen
> <rozzin at geekspace.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
>   The Debian package downloads and runs an executable installer.
> d-m.org offered a proper packaging of the installed files.

I'd go for that, but... is that even *legal*? In the USA?

[...]
> > or do you think that the postinst script is downloading an executable
> > installer and then running that (it's not)?
> 
>   Except that it is.  Read the package description.  Go check the
> source, if you don't believe me.

I did check the source, which is *why* I don't belive you ;)

The postinst script just invokes the `update-flashplugin-nonfree'
command that is shipped as part of the Debian package
(/usr/sbin/update-flashplugin-nonfree), not downloaded on-demand.

`update-flashplugin-nonfree' is a shell script that downloads:

    * a list of checksums from Debian
    * a PGP signature for the checksum-list (signed by the Debian dev.)
    * a tarball containing the plugin `.so' file from Adobe

It verifies the PGP signature using the public key that was shipped
in the Debian package (not downloaded dynamically), then it verifies
the checksum on the Adobe tarball, then it extracts the .so from
the tarball and verifies the checksum for *that*, then it moves
the .so into the target directory, sets ownership and permissions,
invokes the `update-alternatives' command to register the Adobe
plugin with Debian's `alternatives' system.

> http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/flashplugin-nonfree

I actually don't see anything about running a downloaded installer-app
in the description, there, either--what am I missing?

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