Daniel Veditz wrote:
> Design change more than a "bug", technically. In the past the components to
> process were searched for by pattern, and searching stopped with the first
> missing [componentN] section.
>
> This meant components had to be renumbered constantly as packages were
> added, removed, or reordered. And--as you discovered--we had to be on the
> constant look-out for a missing number in the middle.
>
> Now the components have arbitrary named sections (by convention still
> starting with "Component" for readability) and we build the list according
> to which ones are discovered in the SetupType sections.
I guessed so :). I like the current (trunk) approach *much* better. (In
general, not just because I got hurt be the other one :-) .)
