On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:35 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
gEDA provides flexibility. This allows for multiple workflows. Power
users can use this flexibility to custom tailor their workflow. Fine,
so far. However, not everyone is a power user.
If you try to use a chainsaw as if it was a hand saw it
I noticed that atmel offers orcad pcb and schematic files. I want to
import them to geda. They are both binary formats. Is it possible to
write an importer? How can we know the binary format?
-Josh
___
geda-user mailing list
If you try to use a chainsaw as if it was a hand saw it will seem
very clumsy.
As someone who uses a chainsaw often, I find that analogy stupid[*].
A chainsaw is a perfect example of what gEDA is *not*. Anyone
familiar with chainsaws can pick up pretty much any chainsaw and do
most of what
On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:44 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
If you try to use a chainsaw as if it was a hand saw it will seem
very clumsy.
As someone who uses a chainsaw often, I find that analogy stupid[*].
A chainsaw is a perfect example of what gEDA is *not*. Anyone
familiar with chainsaws can
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 17:35:21 John Doty wrote:
[stuff]
This doesn't seem like a very constructive conversation, and neither does it
seem to be making any progress towards an interesting conclusion. Could you
gentlemen please take it off-list?
Cheers,
John Doty wrote:
On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:44 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
If you try to use a chainsaw as if it was a hand saw it will seem
very clumsy.
As someone who uses a chainsaw often, I find that analogy stupid[*].
A chainsaw is a perfect example of what gEDA is *not*. Anyone
Assuming you know how to use chainsaws in general, of course.
Yes, and that last sentence is my point. gEDA is a chainsaw in a
world of where most only know handsaws.
I think you're trying too hard to bend my analogy to your needs. I
suspect that, no matter what anyone else says, you'll
Some distributions, such as Ubuntu, do not install the groff HTML
device by default, and an additional package must be installed to
provide it. AX_PROG_GROFF therefore needs to check that groff is able
to create HTML files.
---
Hi Stefan,
Can you please try this out and see if gEDA builds
On Aug 11, 2009, at 5:22 PM, spuzzdawg wrote:
I think that this is basically an argument in usability vs
flexibility. John is basically arguing that gEDA's lack of
restrictions means that it can be used for a multitude of tasks. A
person's workflow can be developed to the user's
DJ Delorie wrote:
Assuming you know how to use chainsaws in general, of course.
Yes, and that last sentence is my point. gEDA is a chainsaw in a
world of where most only know handsaws.
I think you're trying too hard to bend my analogy to your needs. I
suspect that, no matter what anyone
On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 17:35:21 John Doty wrote:
[stuff]
This doesn't seem like a very constructive conversation, and
neither does it
seem to be making any progress towards an interesting conclusion.
Could you
gentlemen please
Dave N6NZ wrote:
gschem is a toy-scale tool for toy-scale projects. It has 1980's era
interfaces, functionality, and problems. Most of these problems are
well known. Many are even well solved in other tools.
Please, set your sights higher, fast-forward 2 or 3 decades, go see what
the
On Aug 12, 2009, at 11:22 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Assuming you know how to use chainsaws in general, of course.
Yes, and that last sentence is my point. gEDA is a chainsaw in a
world of where most only know handsaws.
I think you're trying too hard to bend my analogy to your needs.
Your
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 17:53:35 Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 17:35:21 John Doty wrote:
[stuff]
This doesn't seem like a very constructive conversation, and neither does
it seem to be making any progress towards an interesting conclusion. Could
you gentlemen please
John Doty wrote:
[huge snip]
I have no objection to wrappers. What I object to is the constant
demand to fix perceived problems by violating the fairly clean,
modular nature of the kit. Rather, we need to make things *more*
modular (e.g. get the hardwired behavior out of the gnetlist
And from here it looks like you don't want to consider my point.
Your point is that gEDA is a powerful flexible collection of tools
that motivated people can (and should) use to do wildly different
things.
My point is that that will never happen if people can't even justify
trying it because
Kai-Martin and DJ didn't seem to care about lost flexibility.
I care a great deal about lost flexibility. I just don't want
flexibility to preclude ease-of-use.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
Just think how awesome gEDA would be if the amount of effort y'all
put into writing code was equal to the amount of energy you're
putting into this ultimately futile flamewar.
When dealing with human factors issues, a lot of energy *needs* to be
spent up front figuring out what the problems
On Aug 12, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Dave N6NZ wrote:
Come on, people, aim higher. The EDA world has learned and re-
learned a
lot of lessons in the past 30 years. Why isn't gEDA interested in
leading the way? Why is gEDA only interested in re-inventing 1980's
suckage? Where is the desire for
Would having a footprint browser popup in gschem when the user tries
to add a footprint attribute violate the modular nature of the kit?
If gschem were designed to allow for other types of attribute
browsers, that would be fine. I think a spice model browser would be
very welcome. Me, I have
On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Jason wrote:
John Doty wrote:
[huge snip]
I have no objection to wrappers. What I object to is the constant
demand to fix perceived problems by violating the fairly clean,
modular nature of the kit. Rather, we need to make things *more*
modular (e.g. get the
On Wednesday 12 August 2009 20:27:28 Jason wrote:
John Doty wrote:
[huge snip]
I have no objection to wrappers. What I object to is the constant
demand to fix perceived problems by violating the fairly clean,
modular nature of the kit. Rather, we need to make things *more*
modular (e.g.
John Doty wrote:
On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Jason wrote:
John Doty wrote:
[huge snip]
I have no objection to wrappers. What I object to is the constant
demand to fix perceived problems by violating the fairly clean,
modular nature of the kit. Rather, we need to make things *more*
On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:36 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Would having a footprint browser popup in gschem when the user tries
to add a footprint attribute violate the modular nature of the kit?
If gschem were designed to allow for other types of attribute
browsers, that would be fine.
Hmm, a simple
DJ Delorie wrote:
Would having a footprint browser popup in gschem when the user tries
to add a footprint attribute violate the modular nature of the kit?
If gschem were designed to allow for other types of attribute
browsers, that would be fine. I think a spice model browser would be
very
Hmm, a simple database format, gafrc tells which ones databases to
browse for what attribute...
I've suggested that before. Some API that lets gschem say I have
these attributes set to these values, what are my options for this
other attribute? and let various plug-ins provide the data from
Should I run gimp to look at the png's with each footprint? ;-)
Footprints aren't pngs. I use pcb to look at footprints.
Dan was working on a modes system for gschem, so you could tell it
Interesting, would this be specified at launch, or toggleable?
I don't know, I've never seen it in
On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Jason wrote:
Would having a footprint browser popup in gschem when the user
tries to
add a footprint attribute violate the modular nature of the kit?
Unless you can provide an interface that would make this work with
all of the ~10 PCB layout programs gEDA can
On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:59 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Should I run gimp to look at the png's with each footprint? ;-)
Footprints aren't pngs. I use pcb to look at footprints.
Dan was working on a modes system for gschem, so you could tell it
Interesting, would this be specified at launch, or
On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:57 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Hmm, a simple database format, gafrc tells which ones databases to
browse for what attribute...
I've suggested that before. Some API that lets gschem say I have
these attributes set to these values, what are my options for this
other
A rule-based thing sounds tricky. I think most would be happy with a
simple list.
Well, the rules would be in the plug-in, not geda. Geda says what
values work here? and gets a list. Gsch2pcb tries to fill in blanks
by requesting defaults, and complains if it can't get one. How all
that
On Jul 22, 2009, at 12:55 PM, John Griessen wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:38 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
I'm all in favor of this. But the right way to do that with a
toolkit is usually to wrap the tools with high level scripts.
Isn't that was the whole gnetlist package *is*
I wish ISE had a makefile generator.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Hi Peter!
Seems like it. No failed compilations despite:
||/ Name VersionDescription
+++-==-==-
un groff none (no description available)
ii groff-base 1.18.1.1-22bui GNU troff
Steven Michalske wrote:
A makefile include that included common rules would go a long way with
making makefiles easier.
include /usr/share/gEDA/gEDA.mk
I've toyed with this idea. See latex-mk.sf.net. While not all
encompassing, it has proven to be extremely useful to me. I don't even
DJ Delorie wrote:
Should I run gimp to look at the png's with each footprint? ;-)
Footprints aren't pngs. I use pcb to look at footprints.
[ja...@haven] $ ls /usr/share/pcb/pcblib-newlib/geda/
01005.fp HEADER40_1.fpQFP120_28.png SOJ28_450.png
01005.png
[ja...@haven] $ ls /usr/share/pcb/pcblib-newlib/geda/
01005.fp HEADER40_1.fpQFP120_28.png SOJ28_450.png
There's an index.html around there somewhere, too - we do that to make
a web-based catalog.
While I prefer one tool does one job well, I also don't like needing
to keep
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Steven Michalskesmichal...@gmail.com wrote:
A makefile include that included common rules would go a long way with
making makefiles easier.
include /usr/share/gEDA/gEDA.mk
where gEDA.mk has
%.pcb : %.gproj # or whatever the mime extension we used for
Dan McMahill d...@mcmahill.net wrote:
Steven Michalske wrote:
A makefile include that included common rules would go a long way with
making makefiles easier.
include /usr/share/gEDA/gEDA.mk
I've toyed with this idea. See latex-mk.sf.net. While not all
encompassing, it has proven
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 15:59 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Should I run gimp to look at the png's with each footprint? ;-)
Footprints aren't pngs. I use pcb to look at footprints.
So an install option to suppress all these png pictures may be useful.
Jason wrote:
DJ Delorie wrote:
Should I run gimp to look at the png's with each footprint? ;-)
Footprints aren't pngs. I use pcb to look at footprints.
[ja...@haven] $ ls /usr/share/pcb/pcblib-newlib/geda/
01005.fp HEADER40_1.fpQFP120_28.png SOJ28_450.png
01005.png
DJ Delorie wrote:
Just think how awesome gEDA would be if the amount of effort y'all
put into writing code was equal to the amount of energy you're
putting into this ultimately futile flamewar.
When dealing with human factors issues, a lot of energy *needs* to be
spent up front figuring out
42 matches
Mail list logo
