Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:40 PM, John Doty [1]...@noqsi.com wrote: On Apr 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote: Failure to correspond to your prejudices is not imperfection. Needing an extra 20 minutes after wiring the net, to populate spice models for each gschem schematic (instead of having a set of default libraries that do that for common circuit elements) for each circuit, I really don't think you understand how the process works. Can you post a schematic? All you should be doing is attaching model-name= and perhaps file= (although I prefer to include a library once) to active components. Not so hard. Harder than having a proper library that allows me to focus on the circuit design instead of these kinds of clerical tasks that appear to arise from an utter lack of understanding that human beings do not like to do mundane, repetitive tasks that are best suited for the software to take care of. While we are on the subject, just typing up the entire spice netlist from scratch in a single window is not hard (and arguably easier than scattering it all over the place the way things are set up now) either. I can get faster results from MacSpice than this artificially convoluted gschem + patchwork + gnetlist workflow. I can understand that you have some emotions invested in geda for whatever reason, but your statement above made absolutely no sense. What you consider common circuit elements are undoubtedly different from what I commonly use. That's how it goes. You have to build your own library, just like I had to when I was using Pspice back in the '90s. Which is precisely the problem. This isn't the 90s. I grew up on BBC microcomputers. Do I feel nostalgic about the things I used to be able to do with those beauties ? Yes. Do I think that the associated workflow with them was superior to the workflow today (even with something as unreliable as Windows) ? Not a chance. compared to spending 0 extra minutes on something like LTSpice or PSpice is not prejudice. It is 20 minutes of wasted time. Of course, I have a decided prejudice against wasted time of that sort. So, very prejudicially, I view it as an imperfection. The real time wasters aren't the setup, but the the repeated manual operations of GUI tools. Thanks for buttressing my argument: 1. If GUI tools are the problem, why use gschem at all ? 2. If repetition is the problem, why the defense of the current workflow that requires repetition of the task of putting in pieces of spice script in different pretty little boxes ? Even MacSpice is better than that. You do have an interesting definition of productivity then. But no matter. Given that I've designed 6000 transistor VLSI chips and 1000 component circuit boards with gschem, I think I understand its productivity. You have to use the power of the toolkit, not struggle against it. Or use a better toolkit that takes that needless, wasteful, and professionally irrelevant struggle out of the equation. References 1. mailto:j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
Most tools require some preliminary investment in terms of setting up libraries to the satisfaction of the user, plus general familiarisation. I think you will find you only need to modify your symbol once to include the appropriate SPICE directives. If you save this symbol you can then reuse it (not trying to make you suck eggs here but this argument seems stalled to the point of stating the obvious). The purpose of gschem does not include containing a library of symbols that include all possible spice and pcb footprint information. gEDA includes gattrib to ease the process of customising symbols - this is not the only method of adding/editing attributes though. Comparing gEDA with LTSpice is a bit odd once you understand the purpose of gEDA. LTSpice by definition has all the SPICE information for all its library components - but I'll warrent it has very little information about component footprints. gEDA is much more powerful and versatile than LTSpice but does require you to do a bit of manual work to begin with. There is discussion about creating a database separate to gschem that may in the future provide SPICE symbol data for standard components. Depending on how this is integrated into the workflow, perhaps this would ease your concerns. Not much help at this stage though... All the best, Geoff ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Fab, Pick and Place, Stencil
I think so, but it's unreliable because we just guess. The assembly house will most likely massage the data anyway. It is actually fairly accurate, but it depends on the component orientation in a reel. The assembly house will definitely massage the data, but they can't necessarily be trusted either... ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Idea/suggestion for improving the gschem GUI
Would it improve the Mona Lisa to add, say, a wilting clock to it? That's a feature from the competition. Heh my point exactly. The canvas could have had anything from a 2 year olds scribbling to a Dali. The value of this canvas is that da Vinci chose to use it and decided it didn't need a wilting clock. However my analogy was meant to illustrate the value of code on an otherwise idle processor. I think we have now transitioned to talking about adding code to an existing codebase which is obviously quite different. So we maybe got an Andy Warhole composed of snippets from from Waldmüller, Monet, Helnwein a cool photograp by an unknown artist and some other stuff based on a sketch from Raffael. And now someone comes and says: Hi, I want to add some features and learn, how to hold a stencil... ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Why did some of my pins in pcb turn orange?
The rule checker seems to think all is OK. Thanks, Jim. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Why did some of my pins in pcb turn orange?
The rule checker seems to think all is OK. It usually indicates a short - pressing o and having a look at the log window should tell you what is going on. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 28, 2010, at 12:41 AM, Madhusudan Singh wrote: On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 6:40 PM, John Doty [1]...@noqsi.com wrote: On Apr 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote: Failure to correspond to your prejudices is not imperfection. Needing an extra 20 minutes after wiring the net, to populate spice models for each gschem schematic (instead of having a set of default libraries that do that for common circuit elements) for each circuit, I really don't think you understand how the process works. Can you post a schematic? All you should be doing is attaching model-name= and perhaps file= (although I prefer to include a library once) to active components. Not so hard. Harder than having a proper library that allows me to focus on the circuit design instead of these kinds of clerical tasks that appear to arise from an utter lack of understanding that human beings do not like to do mundane, repetitive tasks that are best suited for the software to take care of. And gEDA is better at doing the mundane, repetitive tasks than other systems. Once you have your processes set up, a single make can generate netlists, BOM, simulation results, printable schematics, typeset documentation... While we are on the subject, just typing up the entire spice netlist from scratch in a single window is not hard (and arguably easier than scattering it all over the place the way things are set up now) either. I can't imagine doing that for one of my VLSI designs: I could never get it right. But I don't have to. I can get faster results from MacSpice than this artificially convoluted gschem + patchwork + gnetlist workflow. Will you please show us your work? Apparently you're doing it in some convoluted way that makes it unusually hard. Yes, gEDA will let you make your processes as difficult as you want, but that's *your* choice, not the property of the tool. I can understand that you have some emotions invested in geda for whatever reason, but your statement above made absolutely no sense. What you consider common circuit elements are undoubtedly different from what I commonly use. That's how it goes. You have to build your own library, just like I had to when I was using Pspice back in the '90s. Which is precisely the problem. This isn't the 90s. I grew up on BBC microcomputers. Do I feel nostalgic about the things I used to be able to do with those beauties ? Yes. Do I think that the associated workflow with them was superior to the workflow today (even with something as unreliable as Windows) ? Not a chance. I'm sure Pspice users have the same problems today, only worse, since the component choices are much wider. compared to spending 0 extra minutes on something like LTSpice or PSpice is not prejudice. It is 20 minutes of wasted time. Of course, I have a decided prejudice against wasted time of that sort. So, very prejudicially, I view it as an imperfection. The real time wasters aren't the setup, but the the repeated manual operations of GUI tools. Thanks for buttressing my argument: 1. If GUI tools are the problem, why use gschem at all ? As I have said many times on this forum, GUI is suitable for interactions between humans and computers when those interactions are inherently graphical. But GUI is not a good way to *automate* processes that the computer can do by itself. 2. If repetition is the problem, why the defense of the current workflow that requires repetition of the task of putting in pieces of spice script in different pretty little boxes ? For a subcircuit schematic you need a box that effectively says this is a subcircuit with name Other than that, you need no boxes, although sometimes they are convenient. So your problem would seem to be that you don't understand the toolkit. Perhaps the documentation needs improving. Grab the development project from http://www.gedasymbols.org/user/john_doty/models/opamp/index.html and try it out. It's pretty easy, I think, although at this level of simplicity you don't really see the full power of a scripted gEDA flow. A few pretty little boxes in the schematics, but they were hardly difficult to create. The two in the top level schematic could be combined if I wanted, so there'd just be one per schematic. For one of my projects, I have a specialized program (not part of gEDA) that creates an elaborate simulation script, typically ~500 kilobytes, mostly PWM() source data. All I have to do is type make chaintest and the Makefile generates the simulation netlists from the gEDA schematics, runs the program to create the simulation script, concatenates the generated simulation script and another much simpler fixed script to the top level netlist, invokes ngspice, and when that finishes runs a pipeline of specialized programs to reduce the massive output of ngspice (up to 20
Re: gEDA-user: Fab, Pick and Place, Stencil
Duncan Drennan wrote: I think so, but it's unreliable because we just guess. The assembly house will most likely massage the data anyway. It is actually fairly accurate, but it depends on the component orientation in a reel. The assembly house will definitely massage the data, but they can't necessarily be trusted either... This was about the angle theta. Well, I thought this could and should be defined relative to the board alone, same as the X/Y coordinates. All other geometry of the fab is unknown. What I lack here, is a definition like Theta is measured relative to the positive X-axis. Looking at the component side positive theta is counter clockwise. Immediately evident is the question, where the X-axis is in a footprint. Admittedly I didn't care about this with the few footprints I made so far. With package geometies that show symmetry like DIP and/or are elongated, it could be recommended to use the longest symmetry axis as X. For quadratic packages like QFP, axes parallel to the edges of the part and placing pin 1 in the first quadrant is an option - in some datasheets pin 1 is top left though, which would be quadrant 2. Information like this a candidate for the database as well (whether/how the CS of a given footprint deviates from above). Did I miss this in the documentation? - think this should go into the primers. Regards, Armin ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Why did some of my pins in pcb turn orange?
Duncan Drennan wrote: The rule checker seems to think all is OK. It usually indicates a short - pressing o and having a look at the log window should tell you what is going on. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user Ah! Thanks, I accidently moved a part over another and didn't see it. Jim. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
-Original Message- From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of John Doty Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:40 AM To: gEDA user mailing list Subject: Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem ... Harder than having a proper library that allows me to focus on the circuit design instead of these kinds of clerical tasks that appear to arise from an utter lack of understanding that human beings do not like to do mundane, repetitive tasks that are best suited for the software to take care of. And gEDA is better at doing the mundane, repetitive tasks than other systems. Once you have your processes set up, a single make can generate netlists, BOM, simulation results, printable schematics, typeset documentation... How long did it take you to learn make well enough to do this with it? How long does it take you to set up your processes for any given project? ... Or use a better toolkit that takes that needless, wasteful, and professionally irrelevant struggle out of the equation. If you're struggling, you're not using the tool effectively. Show us your work. We can help you, and when we figure out why you're puzzled maybe we can improve the documentation. But to a newbie, learning to use a tool effectively if its only power is at a command line, takes a loong time, and much referring to a separate reference of some kind to find the needed command. A gui, while it can be limiting to an expert, will often speed up that initial learning curve, especially if it's just a wrapper around a command-line or other interface, so the newbie can use it to learn the capabilities and commands that the command-line uses. D ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: spice libs ( a little puzzled)
What you consider common circuit elements are undoubtedly different from what I commonly use. That's how it goes. You have to build your own library, just like I had to when I was using Pspice back in the '90s. Which is precisely the problem. This isn't the 90s. I grew up on BBC microcomputers. Do I feel nostalgic about the things I used to be able to do with those beauties ? Yes. Do I think that the associated workflow with them was superior to the workflow today (even with something as unreliable as Windows) ? Not a chance. My first spice deck was really a deck. Hammered out on an IBM 026 keypunch machine. The whole point of Open Source is that everybody doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. You spend time building a really nice and usable library then you make it available for everybody to use. Somebody will add some new components and someone else will add some nice support scripts and everybody benefits John Eaton ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
Hi,
attached is a 1st version of the table definitions. The file should be
self-documenting.
Armin
-- author: Armin Faltl
-- date : 2010-04-28
-- description:
-- This collection of tables shall describe the connectivity between
-- schematic symbols, parts, packages of electronic parts and
-- copper footprints.
-- It shall take into account the influenc of different production
-- processes on the possible copper patterns.
-- Additionally other relations like part to simulator-model
-- shall be supported.
--
-- Database Design Considerations:
-- Since the pinout of symbols is mapped to footprints via parts and
-- packages, a many-to-many relation of symbols to parts would need
-- some sort of pinout-descriptor or wisely restricting the assigned
-- symbols to a part. This would introduce a further pitfall, so as
-- of now, the table definitions allow only one symbol per part.
-- Not including symbols at all would lose the ability to relate
-- symbol-pins to footprint pins of course.
-- choosing footprints for symbols of parts is a total mess atm!
-- there has to be some hierarchy and order
create table category (
ctg_idx serial primary key, -- just to show you, I know other types than varchar
ctg_name varchar unique
);
insert into category (ctg_name) values ('resistor');
insert into category (ctg_name) values ('capacitor');
insert into category (ctg_name) values ('inductor');
insert into category (ctg_name) values ('diode');
insert into category (ctg_name) values ('transistor');
-- and so on
-- enumeration of symbols
-- - or more, including a path to the symbol file,
-- general description etc.?
create table symbol (
sym_name varchar primary key,
categ integer references category,
descr varchar -- a short description of what the symbol represents
);
-- part is what sometimes is stated in the device in gschem, but it should
-- be more specific than RESISTOR - or not?
-- Beware! certain devices have different pinout, depending on the package.
-- Because the symbol is not in the primary key, this has to be handled in the
-- part_name. The unique ID provided by ordering information should do.
create table part (
part_name varchar primary key, -- this is either a vendor part name/number
-- or a generic pseudo-part denoting an
-- anonymous class of parts providing the function
-- it is questionable to state a symbol here, since it restricts
-- a many-to-many relation to a one-to-many
symbol varchar references symbol, -- thou shall not assign a MOSFET part to
-- a resistor symbol
categ integer references category, -- if this doesn't match the symbols category
-- you might expect trouble
part_spec varchar,-- URI/path to specification
alias varchar references part -- this is an alias to a canonical part for the
-- purpose of grouping specialized vendor stuff
-- to a coarser view
-- stock integer -- inhouse stock of this part
);
-- layout relevant tables --
-- package is a table describing the physical package attributes
create table package (
pkg_name varchar, -- canonical name as of a standard or manufacturer
pgk_spec varchar -- URI to a specification of the package
-- 3d_model varchar -- for rendering ala kicad or mechanical cad
);
-- part_pkg, this is a many-to-many relation, requiring a correlation table
--
-- Beware! certain parts have different pinout, depending on the package.
-- In that case there is a connection between the symbol and the package,
-- that is not expressed explicitly here.
create table part_pkg (
part varchar references part,
pkg varchar references package
);
-- footprint, the actual copper pattern
create table footprint (
fp_name varchar primary key,
lib_name varchar, -- name/path of the library, containing the footprint
);
-- enumeration of processes, to avoid inventions
create table process (
proc_name varchar primary key
};
insert into process (proc_name) values ('hand');
insert into process (proc_name) values ('wave');
insert into process (proc_name) values ('reflow');
-- and so on
-- pkg_fp expresses the relation between package, footprint and process
create table pkg_fp (
package varchar references package,
process varchar references process,
footprint varchar references footprint
);
-- simulation relevant tables --
--
-- the simulation stuff is not very well thought out
--
create table simulator (
sim_name varchar primary key
-- add stuff to describe the simulator here...
);
create table model (
model_file varchar primary key,
simulator varchar references simulator,
model_part varchar references part,
param varchar -- list of parameters to feed into the model for
-- that particular part
);
-- create table model_part (
-- model varchar primary key,
-- part varchar references part,
-- param varchar -- list of parameters to
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 28, 2010, at 5:54 AM, David C. Kerber wrote: -Original Message- From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of John Doty Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:40 AM To: gEDA user mailing list Subject: Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem ... Harder than having a proper library that allows me to focus on the circuit design instead of these kinds of clerical tasks that appear to arise from an utter lack of understanding that human beings do not like to do mundane, repetitive tasks that are best suited for the software to take care of. And gEDA is better at doing the mundane, repetitive tasks than other systems. Once you have your processes set up, a single make can generate netlists, BOM, simulation results, printable schematics, typeset documentation... How long did it take you to learn make well enough to do this with it? Oh, maybe 20 minutes. Make is easy. Best to start with S.I. Feldman's great original writeup: it's all over the web, for example at: www.hpdc.syr.edu/~chapin/cis657/make.pdf Meditate for a minute on how we've lost the ability to write so clearly and concisely. Then go to your more modern make doc to pick up knowledge of the more modern version of implicit rules (easier and more flexible). That'll do you. How long does it take you to set up your processes for any given project? Depends on the scale of the project. It's a small fraction of the project time. Yes, it's annoying work, not comfortably mindless point and click, but it saves bundles of time. And that's the emotional issue: point and click is *comfortable*, scripting isn't. So users don't notice how much time is wasted pointing and clicking, but are annoyed by even a few minutes of trivial Makefile programming. ... Or use a better toolkit that takes that needless, wasteful, and professionally irrelevant struggle out of the equation. If you're struggling, you're not using the tool effectively. Show us your work. We can help you, and when we figure out why you're puzzled maybe we can improve the documentation. But to a newbie, learning to use a tool effectively if its only power is at a command line, takes a loong time, and much referring to a separate reference of some kind to find the needed command. The pricey professional tools are hard to learn. Been there, done that, gEDA's easier. A gui, while it can be limiting to an expert, will often speed up that initial learning curve, especially if it's just a wrapper around a command-line or other interface, so the newbie can use it to learn the capabilities and commands that the command-line uses. Wrap the tools all you want, that's a fine example of factoring. But don't, for example, put kludges into gschem itself to support a specific flow. We already have specialized kludges in gnetlist to support VAMS. One worthy project would be to rewrite these in Guile in the VAMS back end, perhaps refactoring gnetlist to support this. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: spice libs ( a little puzzled)
On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Ouabache Designworks wrote: The whole point of Open Source is that everybody doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. You spend time building a really nice and usable library then you make it available for everybody to use. Somebody will add some new components and someone else will add some nice support scripts and everybody benefits There's a special difficulty with SPICE libraries. I cannot make my private SPICE library available because the license terms of many of the manufacturers' models contained in it forbid redistribution. This isn't a problem that can be fixed easily. I did (at Kai-Martin's request) put some simple, generic opamp models in my area at gedasymbols.org. I *have* (at gedasymbols.org) published part of my collection of gEDA symbols matching Professor Ikeda's OpenIP VLSI design library (more to come), but at the moment you'll have to grab the models from his site (research.kek.jp/people/ikeda/openIP/). I have his permission to collect and publish the models under the GPL, but haven't gotten a round tuit. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gattrib
John, Are you even reading my posts? You comments, even when directly connected to quotes of my own text seem completely unrelated and non sequiturs, and often self contradictory. On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Mike Bushroe wrote: John Doty: These refer to the device, not the pattern of copper on the board. The pattern of copper corresponding to a given device footprint should be chosen in the layout process, because it depends (like other layout parameters) on the manufacturing processes. I am still confused by your continual assertion that the copper pattern should be completely separate from the physical part. As pointed out above, a DIP-16 is a through-hole device in any process, the pins are always 0.100 inches apart, the part number defines if it is a typical 300 mill spacing, or a wide 600 mill. What ever process you use to attach the chip to a circuit board, those things never change for that physical part number. The closest I can guess to something that would be 'process dependent' would be the size of the copper pads, and possibly the exclusion zone around them. I could see having one version for hand soldered work, with 40 mill pads and only enough room to run one signal line between them; and a professional fab shop version with 15 mill pads, 10 mill or smaller traces and and spaces and room for 4 or more signals between pins. These properties are critical, not trivial at all. Which properties? What makes them critical? How does these two sentences relate to to the two paragraphs above? I am more confused about what you mean after reading this, not less. If there was a parameter that could be set by gattrib for each part, Each part? Ugh! Specify the parameters of the *process*, leave the schematics alone. Aside from the fact that a part by part process is miserably low productivity, there's no reason to restrict a schematic to a particular process downstream. What process ? You have used that term many times without giving any examples. I gave two that proved the point in the opposite direction, that process has little or no affect on PCB copper patterns (commonly called footprints). If you can not offer an example of a process that PCB is used to design for but requires radically different copper patterns for the same physical part, I might be able to begin to understand what you point is. I know that PCB footprints are useless for designing a VLSI part, or and FPGA, or CPLD. But I also doubt very much that PCB can be used in anyway to design VLSI parts, pr FPGA arrays, or CPLD devices, so claiming that the *process* selects whether you use PCB footprints or FPGA blocks is meaningless. If you were using gschem to design an FPGA, you would not use gsch2pcb, and therefor even if you ran gattrib to fatten out your schematic symbols, you would not bother to do anything with PCB footprints. I agree that the *process* defines the tool chain. But once you have decided on the gschem to PCB tool chain as being best for your process, PCB footprints, as in copper traces, pins, pads, holes, silk screen, and solder mask pattern attached to a specific physical part, is not only needed but required, and should be as easy to reliably edit to make a good conversion to PCB as the original schematic designing was in gschem. Each part? Ugh! Emotional baggage rather then stating facts, observations, or offering arguments tend to convince me that you have no facts, observations, or arguments to back up your opinions. It is difficult to carry on a meaningful, informative, instructive discussion when your chief reply is Ugh! This response of yours also seems to contradict your self again. You keep calling for flexibility, yet when I mention something that increases flexibility, you suddenly throw up your arms and cry loose of flexibility. I have not yet used gattrib, but from what I have read here and elsewhere, its very purpose is to provide the designer with a text based interface to change attributes of symbols one at a time, or possibly in blocks. How can editing a parameter for each symbol to suggest to gsch2pcb that it use a fat pad and trace based footprint of a skinning based pad and trace pattern be anything other using exactly for what it was designed for? And if you do not intend to run PCB, you can run you own special wizard level too chain and never have to worry about any additions to gsch2pcb, and even if you use gatrib, you can easily ignore the portions that relate to PCBs. or gsch2pcb for all to pick from fat or skinny pads, I could see some use in that. But as far
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
David C. Kerber wrote: Harder than having a proper library that allows me to focus on the circuit design instead of these kinds of clerical tasks that appear to arise from an utter lack of understanding that human beings do not like to do mundane, repetitive tasks that are best suited for the software to take care of. And gEDA is better at doing the mundane, repetitive tasks than other systems. Once you have your processes set up, a single make can generate netlists, BOM, simulation results, printable schematics, typeset documentation... How long did it take you to learn make well enough to do this with it? I'm not John, but understanding make enough, to describe a linear or tree-shaped flow requires reading of about 5-15 pages describing syntax and remebering 3 basic things: - to the left of the : in a rule is what I want to get from that rule (the target) - to the right of the : are the ingredients - the script-piece below the rule is the recipe, how to make the result out of the ingredients; usually a command or sequence of commands. This can be cascaded ad infinitum. All the complicated rest of make is about how to parametrize and generalise these 3-part rules and achieve behaviours that deviate from the simple priciples. How long does it take you to set up your processes for any given project? eventually depends on the project, but so far my geda makefile looks like this: -- cut here - zip: zip lichttisch_`date -I`.zip *.sch *.net *.pcb *.gbr *.cnc -- cut again --- It has a single target named zip that depends on nothing. The target does not create a file called zip so it will always invoke it's script when called. So if I want to create the zip-file of todays snapshot for backup I type 'make zip' Actually typing 'make' would be sufficient, since the 1st target in a makefile is the default. Make was developed to automate hierarchical builds, so it checks the age of file(s) described by a target to the age of all ingredients and invokes the corresponding build script, only if at least one of the ingredients is newer than the target. But to a newbie, learning to use a tool effectively if its only power is at a command line, takes a loong time, and much referring to a separate reference of some kind to find the needed command. A gui, while it can be limiting to an expert, will often speed up that initial learning curve, especially if it's just a wrapper around a command-line or other interface, so the newbie can use it to learn the capabilities and commands that the command-line uses. This took me a few minutes to write. How long did you need to read and understand it? ;-) Armin ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: spice libs ( a little puzzled)
Spicelib (http://www.h-renrew.de/h/spicelib/doc/index.html) is an attempt to provide a library of spice models for gnucap and ngspice users that skirts licensing problems. Much like how Gentoo's Portage deals with non-redistributable but free-to-download software, spicelib downloads models directly from the vendors, then patches them to work with the open-source simulators. Patching is the real service that it provides; due to incompatibilities between simulators, most vendors' models won't work in the open-source simulators. It's still a little rough around the edges, but you can use it to quickly get about 1,500 spice models. It does not, however, make any gschem symbols for you. You will still have to draw your own symbols and then associate them with a model. -Alan On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:25 AM, John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote: On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Ouabache Designworks wrote: The whole point of Open Source is that everybody doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. You spend time building a really nice and usable library then you make it available for everybody to use. Somebody will add some new components and someone else will add some nice support scripts and everybody benefits There's a special difficulty with SPICE libraries. I cannot make my private SPICE library available because the license terms of many of the manufacturers' models contained in it forbid redistribution. This isn't a problem that can be fixed easily. I did (at Kai-Martin's request) put some simple, generic opamp models in my area at gedasymbols.org. I *have* (at gedasymbols.org) published part of my collection of gEDA symbols matching Professor Ikeda's OpenIP VLSI design library (more to come), but at the moment you'll have to grab the models from his site (research.kek.jp/people/ikeda/openIP/). I have his permission to collect and publish the models under the GPL, but haven't gotten a round tuit. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: spice libs ( a little puzzled)
There's a special difficulty with SPICE libraries. I cannot make my private SPICE library available because the license terms of many of the manufacturers' models contained in it forbid redistribution. This isn't a problem that can be fixed easily. For these cases a database can cite the model instead of providing it. Once the user has downloaded his personal copy (supported by a tool/script?), the citation gets exchanged to a pointer to the real thing. With web 2.0 this will get even more complicated since one will land at an advertising page and the description how to find the meat changes every month. Session contexts insure, that noone bypasses the registration and the permanent shifting of stuff insures you see the adds. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gattrib
On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Mike Bushroe wrote: What process ? You have used that term many times without giving any examples. Concrete example: Board fabrication by PCB Express and board population by Screaming Circuits. Each has their own rules about what they can do for the base price, what costs extra, what they consider impossible. Different vendors have other rules. Footprints and other aspects of layout must conform to those rules: simply specifying DIP16 isn't enough. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: spice libs ( a little puzzled)
On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:47 AM, asom...@gmail.com wrote: Patching is the real service that it provides; due to incompatibilities between simulators, most vendors' models won't work in the open-source simulators. This is also a problem for closed source (the curses on this subject of a PSpice user I work with have burned my ears from 2000 miles away ;-). One of the difficulties with fixing this in ngspice is poor factoring. I have a private version that's patched to properly compute MOSFET flicker noise from HSPICE parameters, but only for the level 49 model. To fix this properly, I'd have to work up a patch for *every* MOSFET model, because although the noise formula doesn't change between levels, in ngspice it's a separate function and parameter set for each level. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: spice libs ( a little puzzled)
On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:47 AM, asom...@gmail.com wrote: Spicelib (http://www.h-renrew.de/h/spicelib/doc/index.html) is an attempt to provide a library of spice models for gnucap and ngspice users that skirts licensing problems. ... It does not, however, make any gschem symbols for you. You will still have to draw your own symbols and then associate them with a model. Often one does not need to draw a symbol. For example, opamp-1 and opamp-2 in the default library have the correct pinseq attributes for a 5 pin opamp subcicuit conforming to the defacto industry standard pin sequence. So one easy way to proceed is attach a model-name attribute to the symbol instance and include the model file. Just remember to check pinseq attributes against the model. If there's a problem, make a private copy of the symbol and fix the attributes. But even in that case, you need not draw anything. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
Thanks for a reasonable response to my post. Yes, an initial investment is often needed, but that ought to be an investment that deals with non-standard components that are not of common interest. Second, before your response, no one (at least as I read it) said that you could save the spice directives with the symbol itself. People talked about copying and pasting things from an existing schematic, but that is not the same thing. This rekindles my interest in gschem. One followup question - is it possible to pack symbols with commonly used public domain spice models and create a library that other users of gschem can employ (and would then be able to use without all that initial investment of time) ? If yes, why has no one ever done it (the project is pretty mature) ? If no, what are the legal / technical reasons for that choice ? Its not just LTSpice. kicad (not that I have used it, but reading from the descriptions) supposedly also does a more seamless spice simulation AND has pcb layout tools integrated. Not embedding the commonly available spice models for common components appears to be a retrograde choice for gschem. But I am happy to hear that the symbols can be saved with the model itself. Whether or not a proper shared library can be created is a different matter. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Geoff Swan [1]shinobi.j...@gmail.com wrote: Most tools require some preliminary investment in terms of setting up libraries to the satisfaction of the user, plus general familiarisation. I think you will find you only need to modify your symbol once to include the appropriate SPICE directives. If you save this symbol you can then reuse it (not trying to make you suck eggs here but this argument seems stalled to the point of stating the obvious). The purpose of gschem does not include containing a library of symbols that include all possible spice and pcb footprint information. gEDA includes gattrib to ease the process of customising symbols - this is not the only method of adding/editing attributes though. Comparing gEDA with LTSpice is a bit odd once you understand the purpose of gEDA. LTSpice by definition has all the SPICE information for all its library components - but I'll warrent it has very little information about component footprints. gEDA is much more powerful and versatile than LTSpice but does require you to do a bit of manual work to begin with. There is discussion about creating a database separate to gschem that may in the future provide SPICE symbol data for standard components. Depending on how this is integrated into the workflow, perhaps this would ease your concerns. Not much help at this stage though... All the best, Geoff ___ geda-user mailing list [2]geda-u...@moria.seul.org [3]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user References 1. mailto:shinobi.j...@gmail.com 2. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org 3. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
The problem is that there are very few public-domain spice models. Every semiconductor vendor has their own license (sometimes several) for their spice libraries. Only some of these licenses allow redistribution. Furthermore, because the licenses are carelessly written and applied, they are often legally ambiguous. Yet more pain comes from their incompatibilities; no two spice simulators are 100% compatible, so most (in my experience) vendor-provided models do not work with the open-source simulators. Spicelib (http://www.h-renrew.de/h/spicelib/doc/index.html), which I shall shamelessly plug for the 3rd time on this thread, tries to solve both of these problems. It is a set of scripts that a user can download. The scripts will fetch vendors' models directly from the source, solving the redistribution problem. Then it will patch them for compatibility with gnucap and ng-spice, solving the compatibility problem. Spicelib is still rough around the edges, but it's a quick way to get ~1500 tested spice models that you can use. It does not, however, come with a set of gschem symbols. There is no reason why someone can't create a library of symbols that reference the spicelib models. However, many (most?) gschem users don't want this. A one-size-fits-all symbol just doesn't satisfy everyone's needs. While it's nice for hobbyists and students, most professionals have very detailed requirements and would be unable to use such a premade library. For professionals, gschem's builtin light symbols are more useful, because they can be easily adapted to specific needs. This is also why expensive EDA software typically doesn't come with premade symbol libraries. But I agree, hobbyists would rejoice at the availability of such a library. http://www.gedasymbols.org/ is the closest thing we have right now. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Madhusudan Singh singh.madhusu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for a reasonable response to my post. Yes, an initial investment is often needed, but that ought to be an investment that deals with non-standard components that are not of common interest. Second, before your response, no one (at least as I read it) said that you could save the spice directives with the symbol itself. People talked about copying and pasting things from an existing schematic, but that is not the same thing. This rekindles my interest in gschem. One followup question - is it possible to pack symbols with commonly used public domain spice models and create a library that other users of gschem can employ (and would then be able to use without all that initial investment of time) ? If yes, why has no one ever done it (the project is pretty mature) ? If no, what are the legal / technical reasons for that choice ? Its not just LTSpice. kicad (not that I have used it, but reading from the descriptions) supposedly also does a more seamless spice simulation AND has pcb layout tools integrated. Not embedding the commonly available spice models for common components appears to be a retrograde choice for gschem. But I am happy to hear that the symbols can be saved with the model itself. Whether or not a proper shared library can be created is a different matter. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Geoff Swan [1]shinobi.j...@gmail.com wrote: Most tools require some preliminary investment in terms of setting up libraries to the satisfaction of the user, plus general familiarisation. I think you will find you only need to modify your symbol once to include the appropriate SPICE directives. If you save this symbol you can then reuse it (not trying to make you suck eggs here but this argument seems stalled to the point of stating the obvious). The purpose of gschem does not include containing a library of symbols that include all possible spice and pcb footprint information. gEDA includes gattrib to ease the process of customising symbols - this is not the only method of adding/editing attributes though. Comparing gEDA with LTSpice is a bit odd once you understand the purpose of gEDA. LTSpice by definition has all the SPICE information for all its library components - but I'll warrent it has very little information about component footprints. gEDA is much more powerful and versatile than LTSpice but does require you to do a bit of manual work to begin with. There is discussion about creating a database separate to gschem that may in the future provide SPICE symbol data for standard components. Depending on how this is integrated into the workflow, perhaps this would ease your concerns. Not much help at this stage though... All the best, Geoff ___ geda-user mailing list
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 28, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Madhusudan Singh wrote: Thanks for a reasonable response to my post. Yes, an initial investment is often needed, but that ought to be an investment that deals with non-standard components that are not of common interest. Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read Stephen J. Gould's rants about textbook authors' tendency to copy from previous textbooks sometime), but why would anyone use it in a new design? You and I probably cannot agree on what components are of common interest, and if we bring in a third party I'd expect yet another completely different viewpoint. Second, before your response, no one (at least as I read it) said that you could save the spice directives with the symbol itself. People talked about copying and pasting things from an existing schematic, but that is not the same thing. gEDA is, above all, very flexible. There are a number of ways to accomplish most tasks. You seem to have found one of the more difficult ones (but I still don't understand your difficulty). This rekindles my interest in gschem. One followup question - is it possible to pack symbols with commonly used public domain spice models and create a library that other users of gschem can employ (and would then be able to use without all that initial investment of time) ? Sure. The jargon is heavy symbols. If yes, why has no one ever done it (the project is pretty mature) ? 1. It would take a huge library of symbols to satisfy everybody's desire for their own version of components of common interest. 2. There are few commonly used public domain spice models, so the library would necessarily be very incomplete. It's free software. Someone would have to volunteer to do this. I suspect nobody has because anybody who could actually do it understands the massive size of the library that would need to be generated, and the lack of freely publishable models. If no, what are the legal / technical reasons for that choice ? You are welcome to contribute here. Get DJ to give you an account at gedasymbols.org. Your ambition is impossible, but partial success would still be valuable progress. Beware that DJ will be vexed with you if you pirate intellectual property: be sure you violate neither the model owner's license terms nor the GPL's restrictions on compatible licensing. Its not just LTSpice. kicad (not that I have used it, but reading from the descriptions) supposedly also does a more seamless spice simulation AND has pcb layout tools integrated. They also can't go most of the places gEDA can go. Perhaps you don't care, but gEDA's flexibility is essential to me. Nobody does VLSI design with LTSpice or kicad. Nobody captures schematics for symbolic circuit analysis with them either. But gEDA can do those things. Type man gnetlist for a glimpse at the variety of data products gEDA can export (and it's easy to add more with user Guile scripts). What other toolkit can do this? Not embedding the commonly available spice models for common components appears to be a retrograde choice for gschem. Most commonly available models cannot be legally embedded in distributed symbols since most have restrictive licenses. Note that for big, complex simulations, embedding models in symbols is undesirable because it places a separate copy of the model in the simulation for each component instance. ngspice, at least, handles a reference to a single instance of a library model much more efficiently than a copy of the model for each component instance. In extreme cases I've even seen this problem reveal memory management difficulties in ngspice, resulting in segfaults. But for small, simple simulations, you may prefer models embedded in symbols. gEDA can handle this either way: that's the kind of advantage flexibility brings. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 28, 2010, at 1:26 PM, asom...@gmail.com wrote: Spicelib (http://www.h-renrew.de/h/spicelib/doc/index.html), which I shall shamelessly plug for the 3rd time on this thread, tries to solve both of these problems. It is a set of scripts that a user can download. The scripts will fetch vendors' models directly from the source, solving the redistribution problem. Then it will patch them for compatibility with gnucap and ng-spice, solving the compatibility problem. Might be good to put a link to this on gedasymbols.org. Maybe also get Ales to put one on gpleda.org and Stuart to put one in his spice-sdb document. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
Might be good to put a link to this on gedasymbols.org. Please suggest a specific location, text, and url for such a link. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
We already have specialized kludges in gnetlist to support VAMS. One worthy project would be to rewrite these in Guile in the VAMS back end, perhaps refactoring gnetlist to support this. Let me see the vams code... Boehhoee, that's about 60 lines of code that gives you reduced functionality! But I see an opportunity for you: rename those two functions to something generic, maybe even create _one_ function. Less is more! Don't forget to change g_register.c, prototype.h and put the old vams function name in gnetlist.scm, please make users aware that the vams function is deprecated (e.g. display a message). You didn't forget to change the Makefile.in before compilation? More importantly: when you change the function names, put some doxygen comments above the function. Oh, move it to g_netlist.c. One source file less and increased flexi-functionality! When you are there, you could document all your familiar gnetlist/guile procedures. I'm wondering what scary things you find in g_netlist.c when you are writing documentation for that part of the gnetlist interface. You don't forget to document g_rc.c when completing the documentation? Finally gnetlist gets a documented interface, really useful for new script writers. Yeah, gnetlist gets some love from mr. Doty! Or not... Bas Gieltjes -- ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
Hi Armin, -Original Message- From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Armin Faltl Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:27 PM To: gEDA user mailing list Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib) Hi, attached is a 1st version of the table definitions. The file should be self-documenting. Armin Did you have a stab at: git clone git://git.gpleda.org/gparts.git Just my EUR 0.02 Kind regards, Bert Timmerman ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
I suggest the External Links section of the front page, the text Spicelib provides a large library of spice models tested with Gnucap and NGSpice, and the URL www.h-renrew.de/h/spicelib/doc/index.html . Also, thanks for writing DJGPP so long ago. I'm still using CWSDPMI at work on my DOS machine. -Alan On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote: Might be good to put a link to this on gedasymbols.org. Please suggest a specific location, text, and url for such a link. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Bas Gieltjes wrote: We already have specialized kludges in gnetlist to support VAMS. One worthy project would be to rewrite these in Guile in the VAMS back end, perhaps refactoring gnetlist to support this. Let me see the vams code... Boehhoee, that's about 60 lines of code that gives you reduced functionality! The road to Hell is taken in single steps. But I see an opportunity for you: rename those two functions to something generic, maybe even create _one_ function. Less is more! Don't forget to change g_register.c, prototype.h and put the old vams function name in gnetlist.scm, please make users aware that the vams function is deprecated (e.g. display a message). Nah, just move it into the back end. You didn't forget to change the Makefile.in before compilation? More importantly: when you change the function names, put some doxygen comments above the function. Oh, move it to g_netlist.c. One source file less and increased flexi-functionality! When you are there, you could document all your familiar gnetlist/guile procedures. Been working on that. I'm wondering what scary things you find in g_netlist.c when you are writing documentation for that part of the gnetlist interface. You don't forget to document g_rc.c when completing the documentation? Finally gnetlist gets a documented interface, really useful for new script writers. Yep, it's a lot of work, not made easier by having too much code on the C side. Yeah, gnetlist gets some love from mr. Doty! Or not... It won't get as much as it really needs. Still, it's a remarkably good tool. Bas Gieltjes -- ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: passing parameters to a subckt
Hello all: El 26/04/10 13:43, Kai-Martin Knaak escribió: On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:01:56 +0200, Rubén Gómez Antolí wrote: Power electronics models needed: - SCR Thyristor - UJT - Triac True. I forgot those in my list, because I managed to avoid doing power supplies up to now ;-) - Etc. -v, please. What else components would you find essential to power electronics? Sorry about but, I can't consideer me an expert in power electronics. I say only the stones that I found on my road. In other hand, I'm a bit lost in this discussion, is not usual look for in the web for a macromodel? The discussion is about a default set of models to get a new user started. It is specifically not about a complete library of all components you'll ever need. Ok, thanks. Is a great idea, a basic library with a newbie o recently arrived to gEda can use, without fight too with these area. Go ahead with it! ---)kaimartin(--- Regards. Salud y Revolución. Lobo. -- Libertad es poder elegir en cualquier momento. Ahora yo elijo GNU/Linux, para no atar mis manos con las cadenas del soft propietario. - Desde El Ejido, en Almería, usuario registrado Linux #294013 http://www.counter.li.org ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: gpleda.org going down (server move)
Hi, I'm taking gpleda.org down now (for probably all this evening). Please don't commit anything in the meantime (cause won't be able to...). Hopefully by the time it comes back, it will be living on a new server. Note, I am changing DNS so it will take a while for the new information to propagate. -Ales ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib)
Thanks for the hint. I installed git on my machine to get this Then I searched for references on the web, since the README is a oneliner stating it's own existence. After having found this http://www.geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gparts_dd I see now, that I reinvented the wheel with small differences. No mention of gparts can be found in the master documentation of geda http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:documentation I won't try to compile it now, but the table diagram looks promissing. Regards, Armin Bert Timmerman wrote: Hi Armin, -Original Message- From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Armin Faltl Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:27 PM To: gEDA user mailing list Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Database on symbols, footprints and other (was Re: gattrib) Hi, attached is a 1st version of the table definitions. The file should be self-documenting. Armin Did you have a stab at: git clone git://git.gpleda.org/gparts.git Just my EUR 0.02 Kind regards, Bert Timmerman ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: gpleda.org going down (server move)
[snip] I'm taking gpleda.org down now (for probably all this evening). Please don't commit anything in the meantime (cause won't be able to...). The new host is up, but gpleda.org's DNS hasn't yet propagated everywhere (even to the the host itself), so until that happens I don't expect much to work (externally). If things are working, the following websites should load: http://www.gpleda.org http://git.gpleda.org http://pcb.gpleda.org http://gerbv.gpleda.org If you get a blank page, then it means that DNS hasn't been fully propagated (or if it has, then I've managed to mess something up). Anonymous git should work just like before: git clone git://git.gpleda.org/buildgeda.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/gaf.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/geda_manager.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/gerbv-tinyscheme.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/gerbv.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/gerbvhtdocs.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/gparts.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/gpledahtdocs.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/pcb.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/pcbhtdocs.git git clone git://git.gpleda.org/xgsch2pcb.git Those people with write access should change repo.git/.git/config remotes line from: [remote origin] url = ssh://git.gpleda.org/home/git/repo.git to [remote origin] url = ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/repo.git or [remote origin] url = ssh://g...@gpleda.org/repo.git (putting in the right name for repo.git). Those with write access should also be able to clone using the following: git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/buildgeda.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/gaf.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/geda_manager.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/gerbv-tinyscheme.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/gerbv.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/gerbvhtdocs.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/gparts.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/gpledahtdocs.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/pcb.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/pcbhtdocs.git git clone ssh://g...@git.gpleda.org/xgsch2pcb.git Please let me know if you cannot clone or get to the webpages after about 12 hours (in order to get DNS a chance to propagate). I would hold off on pushing changes until I get a chance to test things a little better. Thanks, -Ales PS. I'm going to shutdown the old host once a full backup finishes. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote: Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read Stephen J. Gould's rants about textbook authors' tendency to copy from previous textbooks sometime), but why would anyone use it in a new design? Very rare?! I see 741s everywhere. WTF? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: DJGPP, was Re: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 28, 2010, at 4:48 PM, asom...@gmail.com wrote: Also, thanks for writing DJGPP so long ago. I'm still using CWSDPMI at work on my DOS machine. Seconded! I used it extensively way back in the day. Brilliant work. DJ, have you done anything on it recently? I don't know how much of a retrocomputing buff you are. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: DJGPP, was Re: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
DJ, have you done anything on it recently? I don't know how much of a retrocomputing buff you are. At the moment, we're mostly just keeping up with GNU releases. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: DJGPP, was Re: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:48 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: DJ, have you done anything on it recently? I don't know how much of a retrocomputing buff you are. At the moment, we're mostly just keeping up with GNU releases. Urr? So I can download a DJGPP package based on a recent release of GCC? URL please! 8-) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: DJGPP, was Re: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
Urr? So I can download a DJGPP package based on a recent release of GCC? gcc 4.4.2 recent enough? http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/ ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: DJGPP, was Re: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:02 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: Urr? So I can download a DJGPP package based on a recent release of GCC? gcc 4.4.2 recent enough? http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/ Wow. You truly rock. I'll be heating up your outbound bandwidth tonight. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Doty wrote: Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read Stephen J. Gould's rants about textbook authors' tendency to copy from previous textbooks sometime), but why would anyone use it in a new design? Very rare?! I see 741s everywhere. WTF? -Dave Sorry to bust the bubble, but he's right. The 741 is well over 40 years old, and its open loop first response pole, where the 6db per octave rolloff begins, is a measly 10 hertz. Today there are $1.00 opamps with a working gain of 20 when feedback is applied, with output slew rates of several thousand volts per second. Thats working bandwidth to several hundred megahertz at the sort of levels found in either a modern broadcast audio mixer, or a production video switcher, and either of those are driving 60 ohms for audio, or 75 for video. Slew rate limits alone in the 741 means you can't honestly ask it for more than a volt of output at full audio bandwidth. At 3 volts the slew rate distortion is so bad even these 75 year old ears can hear it. Even a TLO-72 or 74 can mop the floor with a 741, and output a +- 15 volt rail to rail signal doing it, but into the old 600 ohm std load. -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down. -- H.L. Mencken ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: A little puzzled about the purpose of gschem
On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:48 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: Well, you started out complaining about a 741 model. I'd call that a very rare, obsolete part: I haven't actually seen one in a circuit in over 30 years. I guess it's still in textbooks (read Stephen J. Gould's rants about textbook authors' tendency to copy from previous textbooks sometime), but why would anyone use it in a new design? Very rare?! I see 741s everywhere. WTF? Sorry to bust the bubble, but he's right. The 741 is well over 40 years old, and its open loop first response pole, where the 6db per octave rolloff begins, is a measly 10 hertz. Today there are $1.00 opamps with a working gain of 20 when feedback is applied, with output slew rates of several thousand volts per second. Thats working bandwidth to several hundred megahertz at the sort of levels found in either a modern broadcast audio mixer, or a production video switcher, and either of those are driving 60 ohms for audio, or 75 for video. Slew rate limits alone in the 741 means you can't honestly ask it for more than a volt of output at full audio bandwidth. At 3 volts the slew rate distortion is so bad even these 75 year old ears can hear it. Even a TLO-72 or 74 can mop the floor with a 741, and output a +- 15 volt rail to rail signal doing it, but into the old 600 ohm std load. No bubbles to bust, I'm not particularly fond of the 741...yes there are definitely better opamps out there (I usually use OP07s as my general-purpose opamp) but that doesn't change the fact that I see 741s everywhere. They are far (VERY far) from rare. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
