When I tried to install a package recently, a non-free package was
suggested to me. This compelled me to write a script that filters out
from "Suggests:" and "Recommends:" lines any package that is not
a main or universe "Package:" or "Provides:". Here is an excerpt from
a diff between the current gNS and my filtered version:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
831c831
< Suggests: apt-listchanges (>= 2.35), arj, cabextract, clamav,
clamav-daemon, cpio, dspam, lha, libauthen-sasl-perl, libdbi-perl (>=
1.43), libnet-ldap-perl (>= 1:0.32), lzop, nomarch, spamassassin (>=
3.1.0a), unrar, zoo
---
Suggests: apt-listchanges (>= 2.35), arj, cabextract, clamav,
clamav-daemon, cpio, dspam, libauthen-sasl-perl, libdbi-perl (>=
1.43), libnet-ldap-perl (>= 1:0.32), lzop, nomarch, spamassassin (>=
3.1.0a), zoo
928c928
< Suggests: apache | httpd, rmagic
---
Suggests: httpd, rmagic
1600c1600
< Suggests: apparmor-docs, apparmor-modules-source
---
Suggests: apparmor-docs
1929d1928
< Recommends: libcwidget0-dbg
1982c1981
< Suggests: khelpcenter, rar, unrar | unrar-free
---
Suggests: khelpcenter, unrar-free
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the deleted package names all have in common is that they have no
installation candidate. Non-free packages are a strict subset of such
files.
Should I waste my time any more on this, or would something like this
be helpful in some way to anyone? Personally, I would rather not know
about names of any non-free software. More importantly, in general,
recommendations and suggestions of non-free software by anyone --
especially free software distributions -- are regularly condemned by
the FSF. What do you think?