[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Similar Packages omits most similar package for sshguard



it is actually interesting... may be I abused tags too much for
fail2ban, so nothing is 'similar' to it.

For fail2ban there are tags (and I think they are all actually correct):

# admin::automation
# admin::logging
# admin::monitoring
# implemented-in::python
# interface::commandline
# interface::daemon
# network::firewall
# protocol::ip
# role::program
# security::authentication
# security::firewall
# security::ids
# security::log-analyzer
# use::login
# use::monitor
# works-with-format::plaintext
# works-with::logfile
# works-with::text

for sshguard:
# implemented-in::c
# role::program
# security::firewall
# security::ids
# special::not-yet-tagged
# special::not-yet-tagged::s

so fail2ban tags are superset for sshguard, but for some reason the
algorithm which was used to generate 'similar' field didn't think that
sshguard is 'similar' enough. What is used to judge the similarity? may
be we could inquire the author

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:

> Am Samstag, den 04.10.2008, 11:54 -0400 schrieb Ralph Katz:
> > Hi -- re: webpage ommission

> > Debian -- Details of package sshguard in sid
> > http://packages.debian.org/sid/sshguard

> > "Similar Packages" listed for sshguard omits fail2ban.  Fail2ban is most
> > similar and higher ranked in popularity contest.

>  From what I understand that's related to the debtags given to the
> packages. Given that the debtags web edit interface is currently down
> you propably have to wait to be able to adjust the tags more
> appropriately so that they can be considered similar. :)

-- 
                                  .-.
=------------------------------   /v\  ----------------------------=
Keep in touch                    // \\     (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko              /(   )\               ICQ#: 60653192
                   Linux User    ^^-^^    [175555]


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: