Re: Managing installs of Adobe Flash on Debian (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
[revisiting an old issue] On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote: Reading elsewhere, it would appear Canonical is hosting a repository for Adobe. I don't think this was ever really addressed on-list, so: I did find the APT repository which contains Adobe's free Linux software. The sources.list directive would be of the form: deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/ maverick partner Replace maverick with whatever Ubuntu release is most appropriate for your situation. Unfortunately, the dependencies in that repo don't get along with my Debian 5.0 lenny system. APT claims the adobe-flashplugin package requires versions of certain libraries lenny doesn't have. I can only assume the package is incorrectly using whatever library versions were present on the Ubuntu system the package was built-on. This is the usual behavior with the auto-dependency-generator tools most packages are built with -- they assume you need what you happen to have. More accurate dependency info would require the programmer to manually add some clue to the build, which practically never happens. Certainly the Flash package I get from Adobe's manual download site[1] installs and runs as well as Flash ever does. [1] http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_10_linux.deb -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Managing installs of Adobe Flash on Debian (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
Here's the shell script I just threw together to keep my system current with whatever Adobe's offering. Silent unless trouble or update, so suitable for a cron job. Not really tested much yet. :) http://pastebin.com/eLfi9SNV -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Holy War(!): APT vs. RPM (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
Er, isn't the likely effect of bigots..who crawl out of the woodwork.. to hurt people's feelings? -Bill You never win an argument until they attack your person. --Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procustes, p11 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Holy War(!): APT vs. RPM (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Bill Sconce sco...@in-spec-inc.com wrote: Er, isn't the likely effect of bigots..who crawl out of the woodwork.. to hurt people's feelings? Well, if said bigots have their feelings hurt, I'm okay with that. I've been listening to them spout the same misinformed crap for a decade plus and I'm pretty sick of it myself. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Holy War(!): APT vs. RPM (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name wrote: It's nice/sad to see Debian getting the symptoms of RPM hell that people always bring up. Debian -- or rather, dpkg/APT -- has always had the exact same behavior as RPM/YUM, it's just Debian bigots (who crawl out of the woodwork whenever package management is mentioned) were too blinded by zealotry to understand them. I know this isn't what you're addressing here (and, for what it's worth, I basically agree with you on the point you're making), but there /are/ actually some fairly deep differences in what RPM and dpkg do: they chose very different answers for all sorts of `system policy'-type questions like `do we use a binary database and provide a toolset that should meet the admin needs, or do we store everything in text-files that can be handled by existing text-manipulation tools' and `during upgrade, do we uninstall the old version *before* overwriting it with the new version, or *afterward*'. There are corners where people care about things like that at least quasi-legitimately, similarly to how/why they might care about other system-policy issues. Not that it really affects the `One True Way' arguments Both RPM and dpkg properly warn you if unmet dependencies exist. Both communities developed tools to solve dependencies for you. Debian came up with APT and put it into their distribution from an early age, which was a big win for Debian. Kudos to them for that. RPM derived systems had several different tools for a long time, which meant the command(s) to use varied by distro and release. You might use autorpm, rpmfind, up2date, etc. It wasn't until much later that everyone standardized on YUM. Additionally: There have been (or were) more people building third-party RPMs for a long time. Debian has long had the most native packages in their repository. Debian has a very slow release cycle, so Debian people are more likely to be running similar systems. Thus, Debian users were less likely to encounter a third-party package that had incompatible dependencies. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Holy War(!): APT vs. RPM (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com wrote: It's nice/sad to see Debian getting the symptoms of RPM hell that people always bring up. Debian -- or rather, dpkg/APT -- has always had the exact same behavior as RPM/YUM, it's just Debian bigots (who crawl out of the woodwork whenever package management is mentioned) were too blinded by zealotry to understand them. I know this isn't what you're addressing here ..., but there /are/ actually some fairly deep differences in what RPM and dpkg do ... Which, as you say, has nothing to do with what's being addressed. Binary dependencies exist whether you're aware of them or not. Some people blame RPM for somehow causing the problem, since it generates the warnings. This is akin to blaming fire alarms for causing fires. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Managing installs of Adobe Flash on Debian (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote: I see that they have an apt: URL in use `for Ubuntu 9.04+' ... Where's this you see that? :) Ah, found it. If one uses the Get Flash web page, APT shows up in the Versions drop down list. And then it produces this URL for the download: apt:adobe-flashplugin?channel=$distro-partner Reading elsewhere, it would appear Canonical is hosting a repository for Adobe. But Adobe appears to be hosting their own YUM repository. Humph. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.comwrote: I wish I could. I sincerely wish I could. Alas, I cannot escape from Flash -- too many things I need to use to conduct the business of my life depend on Flash, much to my disgust. :-( I've been hoping that Apple succeeds with their No Flash stance for the iPhone/iTouch/iPad products. I've been able to mostly avoid flash on Fedora x64 and able to get enough Flash to get by when I can't. I'm a Solaris admin though and Oracle's site needs Flash enough that I *have* to access it on Windows to get patches, etc. If there's ever a group of users that don't run flash ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com wrote: IANAL, but I believe that's an open question. It prolly doesn't comply with the license document, but license documents do not have the force of law (much to the dislike of software publishers everywhere). I haven't agreed to the terms of the license. Well, it's a license, not a contract. So it..., er, `grants you license' to do things--like distribute. I haven't looked at the Flash license for Linux, but if it's like most licenses, you're not supposed to distribute it, install it more than once, copy it for your own use, or even look at it closely. Reverse engineering (such as what would be needed to determine which files to rip out of the distribution kit, wink) is typically declared forbidden. Fortunately, again, licenses don't have force of law by themselves Debian does the download-on-demand thing to distance themselves from claims of copyright infringement, I'm sure. Since copyright *is* law, that's something to be a lot more wary of. But if I were trying to defend what d-m.org does (and I sort-of am), I'd point out that Flash installation kit is available for free, and is available for download from a public server without going though any license agreement check. Is simply changing the format so it can be used a violation of copyright, or would that be fair use? In some jurisdictions (not the US, AFAIK) (maybe France?) it's explicitly allowed. Here it's a question for a court to decide (unless there's existing case law addressing it, which there may well be). Do I expect Debian/SPI to volunteer to be the test case for that? No. I'm just thinking, it makes sense to me that Debian does it the way that they do ... I don't blame Debian for not wanting to wander around in a legal minefield, but that doesn't make the problems with flashplugin-nonfree go away. In the meantime, I'm trying to get someone else's packaging of Flash which doesn't have those problems. (Or rather, I was. I've since given up.) ... it extracts the .so from the tarball ... Okay, so it's ripping the files from Adobe's executable installer kit, rather than running same. It's really just downloading and unpacking a tarball, and the only file in the tarball is libflashplayer.so, so I'm not sure what there is to `run'. Hmm. So it is. In the past, to do things manually, I remember downloading the Adobe Flash distribution and running an executable installer component. The name install_flash_player_10_linux.tar.gz would seem to corroborate that. Presumably something changed. Hmm again. Okay, so I've just found something which makes me even less thrilled with Debian's approach (although this may be a new thing Adobe is doing so not really Debian's fault). Anyway, today at least, Adobe provides a .deb package: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_10_linux.deb Seems to install fine. I'll test it when I get back to my X console at home. :) Yeah--I get your issue, now: which isn't so much an issue with how it's packaged or the trustworthiness of the source so much as that Debian's just not pushing out regular upgrades whenever upstream does (which actually seems to fit with their policies...). You're correct in that I have no issue with trustworthiness. I'm unhappy the installation is not a managed package. Easy updates is the big part of that, but the other things count, too. Having every the package manager track all one's installed files makes a lot of little things easier. Again, I don't blame Debian for not wanting to; I'm just unhappy with the result. The only work-around I know to suggest is to just install the package from lenny-backports and regularly update it by running update-flashplugin-nonfree --install, That is indeed what I've fallen back upon. :-/ Personally, I decided to follow your advice on handling people who don't want you to work with them. I wish I could. I sincerely wish I could. Alas, I cannot escape from Flash -- too many things I need to use to conduct the business of my life depend on Flash, much to my disgust. :-( -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Managing installs of Adobe Flash on Debian (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: Hmm again. Okay, so I've just found something which makes me even less thrilled with Debian's approach (although this may be a new thing Adobe is doing so not really Debian's fault). Anyway, today at least, Adobe provides a .deb package: http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_10_linux.deb Seems to install fine. I'll test it when I get back to my X console at home. :) But there you've still got the `doesn't automatically update via APT' situation, don't you (in which case, you might still be better off with the `lenny-backports' thing)? Or does Adobe actually have an APT archive, somewhere? I see that they have an apt: URL in use `for Ubuntu 9.04+', which presumably finds it in Ubuntu's stock archive (but no package by that name is visible at packages.ubuntu.com; maybe that's intentional...). And I'm inclined to go, `wait--isn't Ubuntu 9.04 2 years behind at this point?', but I guess that'd just-about equate to the Debian release that just came out, huh? ;) (and it looks like your .deb is supposed to be `for Ubuntu 8.04+'; maybe that means `works with the Debian released in 2009', maybe not). -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Managing installs of Adobe Flash on Debian (was: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?)
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com wrote: Anyway, today at least, Adobe provides a .deb package: But there you've still got the `doesn't automatically update via APT' situation, don't you ... Yup, yup. It's just cleaner than the fire and forget approach the flashplayer-nonfree package uses. At least the files and versions are properly properly managed and reported now. It's a big step closer. Or does Adobe actually have an APT archive, somewhere? It appears they may. See Installation instructions via APT in the link below. Still working out the details myself. (The .deb didn't drop anything in sources.list.d.) http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/productinfo/instructions/ I see that they have an apt: URL in use `for Ubuntu 9.04+' ... Where's this you see that? :) (and it looks like your .deb is supposed to be `for Ubuntu 8.04+'; maybe that means `works with the Debian released in 2009', maybe not). I'm pretty sure the plus sign there is important. They're just establishing minimum acceptable version. Again, Flash doesn't have much in the way of specific external dependencies, in my experience (although ldd on the binary suggests otherwise; things may have changed again). -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote: Adobe provides a .deb package: Seems to install fine. I'll test it when I get back to my X console at home. :) For those playing along at home: It works. :) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@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 dragonh...@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. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Alan Johnson a...@datdec.com wrote: If you don't want to fish through the repos, you will likely find it in /var/cache/apt/archives/ Alas, no. apt-get won't even download the package because it thinks there are unsolved dependencies. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Roger H. Goun ro...@bcah.com wrote: Is the source package available? If so, you could remove the errant dependencies from the control file and rebuild the .deb. The reason I liked d-m.org's packaging of Flash was that it gave me a proper package that was maintained at current versions and updated properly and automatically with no effort on my part. Apparently, I'm not going to get that anymore. :( -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Alan Johnson a...@datdec.com wrote: If you don't want to fish through the repos, you will likely find it in /var/cache/apt/archives/ Alas, no. apt-get won't even download the package because it thinks there are unsolved dependencies. It's nice/sad to see Debian getting the symptoms of RPM hell that people always bring up. I'm still learning the ins/outs of apt vs yum as I transistion at home from Fedora to ubuntu and debian. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
after a unfortunate accident involving a package manager, a liquid lunch, and a pair of rubber bands I would love to hear more about this at the upcoming ManchLUG meeting. I knew there was a reason for avoiding rubber bands. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jon 'maddog' Hall mad...@li.org wrote: after a unfortunate accident involving a package manager, a liquid lunch, and a pair of rubber bands I would love to hear more about this at the upcoming ManchLUG meeting. I knew there was a reason for avoiding rubber bands. For those who don't get it, that was a reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series by Douglas Adams (RIP). Specifically, the origin story of Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged, who had his immortality inadvertently thrust upon him by an unfortunate accident with an irrational particle accelerator, a liquid lunch, and a pair of rubber bands. My own need to reinstall was caused by my accidentally installing part of squeeze into my lenny-based install, after misunderstanding the semantics of APT's RootDir directive. The resulting craziness minded me of HHGTTG. What really happened is available in the archives: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.gnhlug/20691 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.gnhlug/20708 -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
If you don't want to fish through the repos, you will likely find it in
/var/cache/apt/archives/
Alas, no. apt-get won't even download the package because it thinks
there are unsolved dependencies.
You should be able to pull an inventory from any repo mentioned in your
/etc/apt/sources.list by appending ls-lR.gz to the base URL, thus:
# Example using http://debian.lcs.mit.edu/debian/
wgethttp://debian.lcs.mit.edu/debian/ls-lR.gz
...from which you can see if the package of interest is present and
assemble an URL to use for hauling that package onto your local system
where you can have your way with it using dpkg and such. It'd be nice
if in{stead of, addition to} ls output they supplied full (relative)
pathnames to make such URL assembly more straightforward, but at least
the info is all there.
Of course, this is all terribly fiddly and mentioned here just FYI - the
general solution to your puzzle may lie on another path entirely... -/
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
Escaping from Dependency Hell sometimes involves gymnastics that rival BistroMathics in complexity... ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@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 dragonh...@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. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name wrote: It's nice/sad to see Debian getting the symptoms of RPM hell that people always bring up. Debian -- or rather, dpkg/APT -- has always had the exact same behavior as RPM/YUM, it's just Debian bigots (who crawl out of the woodwork whenever package management is mentioned) were too blinded by zealotry to understand them. Both RPM and dpkg properly warn you if unmet dependencies exist. Both communities developed tools to solve dependencies for you. Debian came up with APT and put it into their distribution from an early age, which was a big win for Debian. Kudos to them for that. RPM derived systems had several different tools for a long time, which meant the command(s) to use varied by distro and release. You might use autorpm, rpmfind, up2date, etc. It wasn't until much later that everyone standardized on YUM. Additionally: There have been (or were) more people building third-party RPMs for a long time. Debian has long had the most native packages in their repository. Debian has a very slow release cycle, so Debian people are more likely to be running similar systems. Thus, Debian users were less likely to encounter a third-party package that had incompatible dependencies. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Alan Johnson a...@datdec.com wrote: If you don't want to fish through the repos, you will likely find it in /var/cache/apt/archives/ Alas, no. apt-get won't even download the package because it thinks there are unsolved dependencies. You can download a single package-file, by package-name, with aptitude download. -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@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. Specific advantages of doing it right include: (1) Updates work automatically, like every other managed package on the system. (2) Versions appear in package management tools. (3) Files and their checksums are known to the package management tools. are you objecting to the Debian package containing an exectuable postinst script (which is normal for Debian packages) No. (Well, overall I think Debian over-uses post-install scripts, but that's a minor complaint, and it's not what I'm objecting to here.) 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. http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/flashplugin-nonfree -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com wrote: (1) Updates work automatically, like every other managed package on the system. P.S.: Given Flash's history of frequent security vulnerabilities and consequence fix releases, this is pretty significant. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@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. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com wrote: 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? IANAL, but I believe that's an open question. It prolly doesn't comply with the license document, but license documents do not have the force of law (much to the dislike of software publishers everywhere). I haven't agreed to the terms of the license. As far as copyright goes, similar things have been considered fair use by US courts in the past. It would have to go to court to decide, and then it would prolly depend on the mood of the judge and/or jury, and the quality of the lawyers on both sides. ... it extracts the .so from the tarball ... Okay, so it's ripping the files from Adobe's executable installer kit, rather than running same. All my individually enumerated complaints still apply in full. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.com wrote: 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? IANAL, but I believe that's an open question. It prolly doesn't comply with the license document, but license documents do not have the force of law (much to the dislike of software publishers everywhere). I haven't agreed to the terms of the license. Well, it's a license, not a contract. So it..., er, `grants you license' to do things--like distribute. Of course, you're not the one distributing, so whatever. I was looking at it more from the perspective of the people who *are* or *would be* distributing--namely d-m and Debian, respectively. I asked, In the USA?, because debian-multimedia.org is registered to someone in France, and Debian no longer has their non-us section to work around bugs/misfeatures in the US legal system. I'm just thinking, it makes sense to me that Debian does it the way that they do (it's expensive enough just to get sued even if you're going to end up winning, and I don't anything to indicate that they would), and I'm surprised to see d-m doing it their (his?) way. Hopefully d-m doesn't get `ICEd' at some point: http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/11/28/authoritarian-update/ As far as copyright goes, similar things have been considered fair use by US courts in the past. It would have to go to court to decide, If you mean from your perspective as a user, I think I get what you mean (DJB was really big on that, as I recall--which was *one of* the reasons that it was such a PITA to use his software...). ... it extracts the .so from the tarball ... Okay, so it's ripping the files from Adobe's executable installer kit, rather than running same. It's really just downloading and unpacking a tarball, and the only file in the tarball is libflashplayer.so, so I'm not sure what there is to `run'. But...: All my individually enumerated complaints still apply in full. Yeah--I get your issue, now: which isn't so much an issue with how it's packaged or the trustworthiness of the source so much as that Debian's just not pushing out regular upgrades whenever upstream does (which actually seems to fit with their policies...). And while aptitude download flashplugin-nonfree (or whatever d-m calls it) will get you the package-file and allow you to install it with `dpkg --force-depends', it seems like you're right: you won't be able to have it just get upgraded automatically until d-m fixes their archive, and you're hosed in the interim. The only work-around I know to suggest is to just install the package from lenny-backports and regularly update it by running update-flashplugin-nonfree --install, maybe in a cron job or something (if there's a new version, it'll get it; if there isn't, it should be a no-op); there may be some sort of hook in APT that you can use to make it run that command for you at the end of every upgrade or dist-upgrade cycle, but I don't know. Personally, I decided to follow your advice on handling people who don't want you to work with them. Of coure, it helped that, in this particular case, the thing never really provided me with anything I needed, so I had only the problems to be rid of :) -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
Hey list, Anyone know of a way to have apt-get (Debian) ignore dependencies and download the frelling package anyway? I've recently reinstalled Debian 5.0 lenny on my PC (after a unfortunate accident involving a package manager, a liquid lunch, and a pair of rubber bands). However, in the meantime, Debian has released squeeze as stable. In the progress of updating for that, debian-multimedia.org broke their oldstable archive (corresponding to lenny right now) and have taken it offline, so only their stable archive (corresponding to squeeze) is available. d-m.org was where I was getting my Adobe Flash package from. They conveniently kept a current release packaged in a real Debian package, not the download-an-executable-installer-for-you package one gets elsewhere. Unfortunately, their package based on squeeze thinks it depends on newer libraries than those which ship with lenny. However, I'm almost positive that's wrong -- Flash is statically linked. It sure as hell ain't built against a particular version of Debian. I'm willing to bet those dependencies are just in the package control file because those were the libraries the auto-dependency-generator thing found when the package was built. One could argue that's a bug in the package, and you'd be right, but one could argue Flash is inherently broken, and you'd also be right. This is the reality I have to deal with, and I can't seem to clue apt-get in to it. (I don't want to upgrade to squeeze because (1) it just came out, and that's always a bad idea with *ANYTHING*, and (2) squeeze has moved to one of those overly-complicated dynamic init systems, which I object to for religious reasons.) Google is full of situations that don't apply. Anyone got a clue they can spare? -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
I am currently running the Flash 10.2 beta on my system right now. I'm not sure how bleeding edge you want to get but this one has hardware acceleration in it if your hardware supports it. I just grab it from Adobe and put it in my plugins folder. Flash is still pretty bad though. Also, I think you can force apt to install a package by running apt- get -f install. -Ryan On Feb 12, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote: Hey list, Anyone know of a way to have apt-get (Debian) ignore dependencies and download the frelling package anyway? I've recently reinstalled Debian 5.0 lenny on my PC (after a unfortunate accident involving a package manager, a liquid lunch, and a pair of rubber bands). However, in the meantime, Debian has released squeeze as stable. In the progress of updating for that, debian-multimedia.org broke their oldstable archive (corresponding to lenny right now) and have taken it offline, so only their stable archive (corresponding to squeeze) is available. d-m.org was where I was getting my Adobe Flash package from. They conveniently kept a current release packaged in a real Debian package, not the download-an-executable-installer-for-you package one gets elsewhere. Unfortunately, their package based on squeeze thinks it depends on newer libraries than those which ship with lenny. However, I'm almost positive that's wrong -- Flash is statically linked. It sure as hell ain't built against a particular version of Debian. I'm willing to bet those dependencies are just in the package control file because those were the libraries the auto-dependency-generator thing found when the package was built. One could argue that's a bug in the package, and you'd be right, but one could argue Flash is inherently broken, and you'd also be right. This is the reality I have to deal with, and I can't seem to clue apt-get in to it. (I don't want to upgrade to squeeze because (1) it just came out, and that's always a bad idea with *ANYTHING*, and (2) squeeze has moved to one of those overly-complicated dynamic init systems, which I object to for religious reasons.) Google is full of situations that don't apply. Anyone got a clue they can spare? -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
I don't know that you actually can. Because of apt-get's nature as a package manager, its whole job is to ensure that things work correctly and that everything is installed that needs to be for the package you are needing. On the other hand, if you can do a wget of the .deb file for the app you want to install, you could do: [code] dpkg --force-conflicts -i package.deb [/code] That should do what you want, albeit completely circumventing the apt-get issue. Regards, Jeff On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.comwrote: Hey list, Anyone know of a way to have apt-get (Debian) ignore dependencies and download the frelling package anyway? I've recently reinstalled Debian 5.0 lenny on my PC (after a unfortunate accident involving a package manager, a liquid lunch, and a pair of rubber bands). However, in the meantime, Debian has released squeeze as stable. In the progress of updating for that, debian-multimedia.org broke their oldstable archive (corresponding to lenny right now) and have taken it offline, so only their stable archive (corresponding to squeeze) is available. d-m.org was where I was getting my Adobe Flash package from. They conveniently kept a current release packaged in a real Debian package, not the download-an-executable-installer-for-you package one gets elsewhere. Unfortunately, their package based on squeeze thinks it depends on newer libraries than those which ship with lenny. However, I'm almost positive that's wrong -- Flash is statically linked. It sure as hell ain't built against a particular version of Debian. I'm willing to bet those dependencies are just in the package control file because those were the libraries the auto-dependency-generator thing found when the package was built. One could argue that's a bug in the package, and you'd be right, but one could argue Flash is inherently broken, and you'd also be right. This is the reality I have to deal with, and I can't seem to clue apt-get in to it. (I don't want to upgrade to squeeze because (1) it just came out, and that's always a bad idea with *ANYTHING*, and (2) squeeze has moved to one of those overly-complicated dynamic init systems, which I object to for religious reasons.) Google is full of situations that don't apply. Anyone got a clue they can spare? -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Ryan Stanyan ryan.stan...@gmail.comwrote: Also, I think you can force apt to install a package by running apt- get -f install. -f will fix stuff, like getting dependences from a failed dpkg -i and finishing the install, but won't force an install of a package. I don't know if apt can do that. dpkg is definitely the command I'd fight with, as Jefferson suggested or something similar. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
Is the source package available? If so, you could remove the errant dependencies from the control file and rebuild the .deb. -- Roger ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Force apt-get to ignore dependencies?
Benjamin Scott dragonh...@gmail.com writes: Hey list, I've recently reinstalled Debian 5.0 lenny on my PC (after a unfortunate accident involving a package manager, a liquid lunch, and a pair of rubber bands). However, in the meantime, Debian has released squeeze as stable. In the progress of updating for that, debian-multimedia.org broke their oldstable archive (corresponding to lenny right now) and have taken it offline, so only their stable archive (corresponding to squeeze) is available. d-m.org was where I was getting my Adobe Flash package from. [...] Anyone got a clue they can spare? What's wrong with the `flashplugin-nonfree' package that Debian has in lenny-backports? -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
