On 05/11/2007 04:40 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
But it's not a style issue. It's solving a problem. The adresses from this
tag are the only addresses available from the binary and as such are
mistaken for maintainer/general contact addresses which they often are not.
Which is why you want MODULE_MAINTAINER()
Right. Or want_ed_ at least.
contacted for the driver. Giving that MODULE_MAINTAINER was concluded to not
be a good idea
Not my fault, not my problem, take it back up with the objectors
The thing is, Adrian Bunk had a valid argument against it and it's one of
the arguments that exist against MODULE_AUTHOR as well; the address would
live on "forever" as part of Linux installs.
So say I'm maintaining driver foo. Then the dog eats my foo and I can't
maintain it anymore since I can't test; off goes a patch removing
MODULE_MAINTAINER from the source and/or the MAINTAINERS file but I can't do
anything about all the existing installs that proudly announce my address as
a contact for foo. The way I _can_ do something about existing installs is
to not make people believe there's a maintainer contact address there in the
first place so that people know they need to look elsewhere.
Now, unlike Adrian (it seems) I'm not actually all that worried about the
"forever" bit. People with old Linux installs around should quite possibly
not be overly worried about so I'm still not against MODULE_MAINTAINER but
it is a valid argument. And no, it's not the same as "the source tree on the
user's box". Why would there even be any such thing?
The author also can't update the kernel rpm packages provided by the
distibutor where 99.99% of the users get their data.
Right. So let's stop putting in confusing data in the first place. This is
what the patch that you objected to advised (<-- s!).
I have no problem with people using name only, or name and email. Its
not my problem what they use.
Your argument is inconsistent. The current comment says:
/* Author, ideally of form NAME <EMAIL>[, NAME <EMAIL>]*[ and NAME <EMAIL>]
After my trivial patch, it says:
/* Author, ideally of form NAME[, NAME]*[ and NAME] */
So what do you find _better_ about the first form? I've been going on about
the problems of it only one of which is email adresses geting outdated
(which happens for multiple reasons; owner graduating, ISP mergers, dog
eating owner's foo, owner dying, dog dying and owner getting so depressed he
just can't handle it all anymore, what have you) and as such putting them
into the binary is not something to generally advise.
Finally, at the very, very least the advice to add more future problems
should be killed and that's the only thing _this_ particular patch does.
Adding new drivers causes future problems, lets stop that too ?
That's being argumentative just for the heck of it. (N+1) future problems
are not better than N future problems.
The patch as submitted stands. The advice of putting in an email address is
generally bad advice. Stop giving generally bad advice.
Rene.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
