On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambau...@verizon.net> wrote: [snip]
> Do we really want to be in the business of working around other peoples > broken software? I really don't want KiCad to be part of that world. > It's one of the reasons I am willing to work on KiCad for free. While I > appreciate your effort, this is something I would not commit unless we > are violating the gerber specification which appears not to be the case > if JP is correct. What we should be doing is sending high quality bug > reports including references to the gerber specification, screen shots, > files that cause the problem, etc. so the developers of the various > broken gerber viewer apps and make it their responsibility to fix their > code. [snip] > No, that's not a good business to be in and it only encourages the proliferation of bad software while wasting your own time. I find fiddling IDF to work with SolidWorks' abysmal IDF translator is enough of a nuisance; I'm only forced to work around issues since IDF will never change again, I need to work with SW, and I know Dassault doesn't care to fix the problems. The UCAMCO specification states that non-conforming implementations are defective and no one is required to support defective implementations. If anyone wants to represent circles as 2 arcs I think that should be a separate tool rather than something cluttering the KiCad code. My preferred solution of course is for CAM350 users to get the software provider to fix their defective implementation. - Cirilo
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
