Using DBI

[Gervase Markham]

> Did someone change the order of the array?  I remember hassling dkl about
> that when we changed to using a hash for the dependency list because it
> listed the dependencies out of order.  If it's doing that now, someone's
> broken it again since then, and it should by all means be fixed.

As far as I can see, we use an array to store the dependency list, but a 
hash to collect the names of the ones we are missing. So, the missing 
modules still come out in hash order (i.e. any order you like.) This 
also needs to be a list, to preserve the ordering.

Do you want to hassle dkl again, or file a bug? :-)

Gerv