Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 1 Mar 2008 00:27:22 +0100 (CET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: Few ideas... |
| |
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.
| |