> > +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.
How about use::filetransfer and then protocol::p2p:{dc,...} or
protocol::filetransfer:{dc,...} or even
protocol::p2p:filetransfer:{dc,...}?
Regards
Ben
_______________________________________________
Debtags-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
