> On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:22, Charles Steinkuehler <char...@steinkuehler.net> > wrote: > >> On 1/16/2014 11:33 AM, Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote: >>> On 1/16/14 09:48 , Charles Steinkuehler wrote: >>> >>> * How do I determine if a configuration should go into by_machine or >>> by_interface, or am I to somehow create symlinks so it shows up in both? >> >> I think by_machine is for configs that correspond to specific, widely >> available machines, where the config can know the details of tunables >> like SCALE and stepgen timings. >> >> I think that's not the case for the configs you're making, i think your >> configs are for specific home-made machines, and you don't necessarily >> know the microstepping of the amps or the pitch of the >> leadscrews/drive-belts. If i'm right, then your configs belong in >> by_interface. > > You're right, I have good guesses as to decent values for the mechanics, > but I don't really know what they are for sure. I didn't catch the > distinction between these directories previously, so either it's not > mentioned or I wasn't looking in the right spot (potential README > improvement)? > > Dewey: Did I miss this in the docs somewhere? >>> It seems like perhaps the following would work better: >>> >>> ~/linuxcnc Empty (or missing) directory as shipped >>> >>> ~/linuxcnc-dev LinuxCNC git clone & build directory for RIP >> >> Yes :-) > > Consider it done. I was just doing "git clone <repo>" like I do for > most everything else. :-/
One thing I experienced when I used a ~/linuxcnc-dev directory was that the config I choose always pointed to the ~/linuxcnc directory, no matter what I changed in the script when starting up, maybe it was my inexperience at the time, but after rip-environment I could not see the configs unless I put them in the ~/linuxcnc tree > >>> Does this seem reasonable? IMHO, it seems OK as-is, but what happens >>> when someone wants to provide a similar configuration for something >>> driven by a mesa card on an x86 instead of a BeagleBone? How is that >>> indicated in the config file structure so the config selector presents >>> something coherent to the user? >> >> This would currently be handled by the "by_interface" structure. The >> new configs would go next to the other mesa configs. > > OK, that makes sense. I'll use different *.ini files for the various > pinouts. Later I can drop a configuration into by_machine/ if there > turns out to be something standard enough (perhaps the Shapeoko V2, the > Kossel Pro, or similar) with broad adoption of the BeagleBone for a > controller. > > Thanks for the feedback! > > -- > Charles Steinkuehler > char...@steinkuehler.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
