Re: Few ideas...

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Mar 1 2008 00:17, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>
>> d: I think it would not bad if it were included in the resulting
>> object file like MODULE_AUTHOR is.
>
>I specifically don't want it in the binary - maintainers change, it's
>not a point of contact for end users. It would be for source code ops
>only.

So what apart from the parsability of a MODULE_MAINTAINER() tag,
what is different from authors engraving their name into a
comment at the start of the .c file?

>> If anything, MODULE_AUTHOR could be removed, because the original
>> author(s) are usually listed at the top of the .c file and not
>> always the ones to talk to when there is a bug (=> the maintainer
>> is).
>
>Perhaps it's there because of copyright.

A number of .c files (even those that are not just built-in, but can
also be built as =m) do not have a MODULE_AUTHOR(); and copyright is
even valid when there is no apparent author name.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/