On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I don't think this is the right way to fix it. Sorry! :-(
I don't think it is the right way to do it either :-)
> I say this because it worked somewhat by luck before, and now it's
> broken. If we put in another "it'll work because of a side effect of an
> unintentional characteristic of the build system" hack, it'll just
> likely break again someday if/when we change the build system.
I completely agree.
> I'd prefer a more robust solution that won't break as a side-effect of
> the build system.
I'd prefer too, but it would require adding much more logic in the
framework, including component sort with priority. And since no-one except
me seems to care about this functionality, I'm fine with this patch.
More generally, I understand your demand for high quality patches that do
things The Right Way. However, I feel it's sometimes exagerated,
especially when talking about parts of the code that don't meet these high
In the end, my feeling is that we don't replace very bad (broken) code
with bad (working) code because we want to wait for a perfect (never
happening) code. I don't think it's beneficial to the project.