Re: MODULE_MAINTAINER

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:02:41PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 04/04/2007 02:33 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:26:04PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> 
> >>Can we have a MODULE_MAINTAINER to complement MODULE_AUTHOR?
> >
> >#define MODULE_MAINTAINER(x) MODULE_AUTHOR(x), please.
> >MODULE_AUTHOR really has meant maintainer in practice for ages, and it's
> >the only actually relevant for users information we should store.
> 
> Given modules with multiple authors, current and non-current, I believe 
> having "modinfo -m" tell the user whom to contact is an avantage.

Much bigger problems are:
- Who will maintain this information properly?
- What about modules that are maintained implicitely by the subsystem
  maintainer?

And often a user can't be expected to locate the source of a problem, or 
it might not be in a driver but in a subsystem.

For vendor kernels, the user should contact the vendor.
For ftp.kernel.org kernels, I don't see any better solution than telling 
people to report problems to linux-kernel or the kernel Bugzilla and 
routing them further from here.

> Rene.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed