Martin Spasov wrote:
> +Tag: filetransfer::dc
> +Description: Direct Connect p2p protocol
> +
> +Tag: filetransfer::torrent
> +Description: BitTorrent p2p protocol
> +
> +Tag: filetransfer::edonkey
> +Description: Edonkey/Overnet/Emule p2p protocol
> +
> +Tag: filetransfer::nap
> +Description: Napster p2p protocol
> +
> +Tag: filetransfer::soulseek
> +Description: Soulseek p2p protocol
We certainly seem to be short on p2p protocols. But...
* Is it possible we could get by with a single ::p2p tag? With
thousands of packages to classify, it seems unbalanced to
create categories with memberships as tiny as ::soulseek.
* Why put them under the filetransfer:: facet? All it contains is
duplicates of a few protocol:: tags, without even covering
all of the protocols usable for transferring files.
(This is a gripe I've mentioned before: redundant duplicate tags
like filetransfer::http and protocol::http just distort package
resemblance scores. I'd like to see the filetransfer:: facet
abolished.)
> +Tag: filetransfer::gnutella
> +Description: Gnutella 1/2 p2p protocol
One last thing: is this "Gnutella p2p protocol (v1 or v2)"? Or is
there really such a thing as a half p2p protocol?
--
JBR
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)
_______________________________________________
Debtags-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
