Also, in the course of digging deeper into the EULA handling (in the hopes of finding a path by which this could still be accepted into universe), I noticed that the maintainer scripts for this package (postinst) use 'mv' to stow the libraries into a directory outside of the linker path until the license is accepted. This isn't an acceptable technical mechanism from the point of view of distribution integration. Preferred technical mechanism would be either:
- a debconf prompt requiring the user to accept the EULA prior to unpacking (I believe there are examples of this in the Ubuntu archive in the flashplugin packages, or the msttcorefonts package)
- using dpkg-divert instead of mv to move the libraries out of the path (i.e. not bypassing the package manager in a way indistinguishable from filesystem corruption)
Also, in the course of digging deeper into the EULA handling (in the hopes of finding a path by which this could still be accepted into universe), I noticed that the maintainer scripts for this package (postinst) use 'mv' to stow the libraries into a directory outside of the linker path until the license is accepted. This isn't an acceptable technical mechanism from the point of view of distribution integration. Preferred technical mechanism would be either:
- a debconf prompt requiring the user to accept the EULA prior to unpacking (I believe there are examples of this in the Ubuntu archive in the flashplugin packages, or the msttcorefonts package)
- using dpkg-divert instead of mv to move the libraries out of the path (i.e. not bypassing the package manager in a way indistinguishable from filesystem corruption)