Peter Clifton wrote: > For converting "legacy" designs, an import from gerber might be more > generally useful to our user base, and doesn't require decyphering > unknown file formats. Admittedly this looses footprint information, but > perhaps that isn't always an issue.
Sometimes I would like to import eagle designs done at other intitutes. In that case I need full access to schematic and footprints. A gerber import would not do the trick. > >> How far did you advance on this road? > > Unpacking the container format, separating out individual footprints > from a library, identifying most of the binary record types within those > footprints. It would take time and examples to verify we can know the > meaning of each field in the format, but that is only a time + effort > job. Cool. Any chance, you can fan out part of the job to volunteeers? > I'll get hold of the guys I was working for and see if I can make a > preliminary release of the findings made. (This was all done in the > support of gEDA anyway). What was the plan for the final product? Any license strings attached, that would prevent distribution by super correct distros like Debian? ---<)kaimartin(>--- >> PS: Why did none of my todays posts hit the list, yet? (While others seem >> to have no problem to get through within minutes) Any answers to this one? -- Kai-Martin Knaak tel: +49-511-762-2895 Universität Hannover, Inst. für Quantenoptik fax: +49-511-762-2211 Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover http://www.iqo.uni-hannover.de -----> not happy with moderation of geda-user mailinglist _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user