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? _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
