I'll take a look at fixing this the right way today. Since I wrote both the original autogen.sh that guaranteed static-components was ordered and PREFIX code, I had considered it to be a documented feature that there was strong otdering in the static-components list. So personally, I'd consider it a bug in autogen.pl, but I think we can work around it.
Brian On Oct 26, 2010, at 6:01 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote: > 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 > quality standards. > > 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. > > Sylvain > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories
