Stuart Brorson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Trying to make the database optional even after developing its use >> sounds hard. Is there opposition to a database? No database ever would >> be limiting... > > I've been watching this discussion for quite a while. I don't want to > derail it, since it's good to have an exchange of ideas. However, > since you asked, I'll chime in. > > I am completely, utterly, and deadly opposed to a database, except as > an optional plug-in -- i.e. a separate facility which the remainder of > gEDA can run without. If gEDA requires a database for use, then we > lose 99% of all gEDA users. A database is a PITA to install, build, > maintain, administer, upgrade, and use. It is also a dependency which > will make gEDA uninstallable by almost everybody.
You are right, but it took me 5 minutes to install MySQL server, and a PHP client. But still, gEDA must operate without database. > The beauty of gEDA is that it is (barely) simple enough that rank > amateurs can figure it out and produce boards. It is also powerful > enough that professionals can produce low to mid-level complexity > boards. Don't break that feature! Agreed. So I think that is why I we should stay with the current fileformats. Like I said there is no need for the BOM thing, as it just enhances complexity. We'd only need at maximum some module that is able to contact a database, query information, and set/change attributes. And the whole thing as an option. gEDA is really a nice and easy tool. We really should not change this feature. Just my EUR 0.02 -- Levente http://web.interware.hu/lekovacs _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user