Re: non-free packages should document/advise about alternatives

[eichin@thok.org (Mark W. Eichin)]

> [non-debian corel wp.deb example]

As pointed out, *corel* is providing the deb to others; it isn't part
of debian; they can just ignore the policy point.

However, it also occurs to me that this could be a clever little use
of the reverse-suggests feature that inspired this subthread: the free
package could have the reverse-suggest...  so, for example, xpdf could
reverse-suggest acroread; someone installing FreeDebian would only
have xpdf, and the reverse-suggest would be ignored; someone
installing the Debian Compromise Collection would select acroread, and
then have xpdf suggested as an alternative...

This would be an alternative, not necessarily a default; putting the
burden on the non-free packagers is still better (especially when the
non-free packager *isn't* the vendor and thus has no vested interest
in the preference...)

> sense: we should not discriminate against any *uses* of Debian (main) be
> they evil or not.  (We should not "endorse" them either but that's another

This isn't *discrimination*, really, just exploiting our position as
a gnu/linux "vendor" for the benefit of particular free software.