On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:01:59PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > My own proposal (posted in the past) is here: > > http://www.delorie.com/pcb/component-dbs.html >
I like this idea a lot. Allowing pcb and gschem to use different (multiple) databases with different backends gives us a lot of freedom. It would let us ship, say, a sqlite database with a bunch of defaults (after bickering endlessly about what such defaults might be), while shops or even gedasymbols.org might have a real SQL db so that everyone has the same footprint data. It would also greatly simplify packaging and versioning, since these database backends can be changed by sql scripts, can store metadata, etc. > It moves the problem out of gschem and into the netlister, which gives > PCB the opportunity to be part of the process as well (the netlist can > accept input from both gschem and pcb), but adds the requirement for > back-annotation for those who prefer the master schematics to have > that info in them. It is also an optional step in the flow, so it > doesn't block other solutions (like a heavy-only library). > -- Andrew Poelstra Email: asp11 at sfu.ca OR apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/ _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user