Dear all,
I just learn about PCB and try to move footprints in pcb and have the problem
that the silk layer with the component refdes names seems to be unmovable.
Since I use small SMD parts, the text (e.g. R1, C1, etc.) nearly covers
completely the pads.
Furthermore, I noticed that I can not
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 17:10 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
What you want is a four-slot-slotted gate symbol, and a separate power
symbol. The slots permute across {gate 1, gate2} x {A-B inputs, B-A
inputs}. I.e. you can use the slotting to switch gates *or*
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:24:48 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 18:35 +, Ineiev wrote:
On 11/17/09, Peter Clifton
pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:11 +, Ineiev wrote:
I think you may want to use this Frank Bergmann patch (I like it
very much)
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 17:21 +0900, Torsten Wagner wrote:
Dear all,
I just learn about PCB and try to move footprints in pcb and have the problem
that the silk layer with the component refdes names seems to be unmovable.
Since I use small SMD parts, the text (e.g. R1, C1, etc.) nearly
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 23:53 -0500, Dan McMahill wrote:
Stefan Salewski wrote:
Hello,
is gdlib with png support needed when we install PCB 20091103 with
configure option -enable-m4lib-png?
yes.
There should be a helpful error message to that effect if you try to use
that option
Hi Stefan,
2009/11/18 Stefan Salewski [1]m...@ssalewski.de
There is something in PCB Menu like Only Names or Lock Names.
This
is related to refdes text.
Thanks for making things more clear... Actually, after my post I found
the options you mentioned. Just was
On 11/18/09, Frank Bergmann frank.g...@frajasalo.de wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:24:48 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 18:35 +, Ineiev wrote:
On 11/17/09, Peter Clifton
pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:11 +, Ineiev wrote:
Does it work with the
For
http://www.gpleda.org/mailinglists.html
we still are searching in geda.seul.org.
But searching in archives.seul.org
gives more results:
Input in Google search area:
site:archives.seul.org myserchtext
Is this the best way?
___
geda-user
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 23:34 +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:35:08 +0100, Stefan Salewski wrote:
I generate a bug with slotting, see
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Apr-2009/msg00189.html
Ouups.
I only did not get bitten by this trap, because my pinseq
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 17:19 -0700, John Doty wrote:
Another problem is that it doesn't play well with hierarchy. Suppose
you need a bunch of the same circuit, but one of the building blocks
comes in pairs, and another comes in duals. That forces you to draw
six of the circuit per block.
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 09:23 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 17:10 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
What you want is a four-slot-slotted gate symbol, and a separate power
symbol. The slots permute across {gate 1, gate2} x {A-B inputs,
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
This thread reminds me again to my something useless post some days ago:
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Nov-2009/msg00310.html
When I design electronics, there may be an initial phase where
Stephan Boettcher wrote:
I'd not call that abuse. The current sloting mechanism allows to change
pin numpers on a drawn component to switch to a different instance of the
component inside the same package.
We also call for changing pin numbers when we replace one package type
with another.
On Nov 18, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Not sure if this question is related, but...
Why not change the workflow so that during schematic capture, there
are
no pin numbers anywhere? Pins on symbols get assigned a physical
pin
number during some some later step, at the same
Hi all,
thanks for the many replies, and sorry for my silence, real life kept me
extremely busy these days. Here's a long e-mail with the answers to your
questions, and yes, the problem is still unsolved... :(
My motivation mainly was to update the ancient Gentoo gwave version...
Am Montag
Hi Chitlesh,
On Montag, 16. November 2009, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
I've encountered a similar bug about 2 years ago with the fedora
gwave package. Till then, I think I fixed it by setting g-wrap-devel
package as dependency of gwave.
Try to install the development package : g-wrap-devel and
On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Stephan Boettcher wrote:
I'd not call that abuse. The current sloting mechanism allows to
change
pin numpers on a drawn component to switch to a different instance
of the
component inside the same package.
We also call for changing
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 10:56 -0700, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 18, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
So I think what you're saying is that you like the idea of a tool
that converts (hierarchical .sch)-(flat .sch).
That can't work if there isn't some extra information input somewhere.
On
Steven Michalske wrote:
Your suggestion sounds like an implementation I would call a logical
hierarchy
( A hierarchy could be one level deep, and flat in the first place. )
workflow
logical hierarchy ---implement--- physical hierarchy ---flatten?---
physical flat design.
Then the
John Doty wrote:
Let's not say change the workflow. There are many workflows. Pin
numbers and packages are already irrelevant to some.
Well, let's say change MY workflow. :)
Have a tool that translates schematics without pin numbers to
schematics with them.
Actually, I kind of
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
It is a perfect example of why gEDA can never grow more friendly
interfaces to these problems. _Because_ the existing interface can be
abused - and people think it is a good idea to encourage
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 12:54 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Why not change the workflow so that during schematic capture, there are
no pin numbers anywhere? Pins on symbols get assigned a physical pin
number during some some later step, at the same time that footprints are
selected. And then a
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 14:31 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Steven Michalske wrote:
* a schematic symbol represents some or all of a component
* a component might satisfy the functionality indicated by more than
one symbol
* a component comes in one or more footprints
You're clearly thinking of
On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 10:56 -0700, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 18, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
So I think what you're saying is that you like the idea of a tool
that converts (hierarchical .sch)-(flat .sch).
That can't work if there
I've tried looking at some pcb docs and have played around with the
preferences but can't seem to find it. Is there anyway to have black
background and white grid for pcb?
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
Bill Gatliff wrote:
* a schematic symbol represents some or all of a component
* a component might satisfy the functionality indicated by more than
one symbol
* a component comes in one or more footprints
* footprints are used by more than one component
* schematic hierarchy symbols are just
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:53 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
I think I'd prefer flexible mechanism instead of multiple mechanism
doing almost the same.
Fine, condemn us to the status quo - where gEDA has no ability to
identify
Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 14:31 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Steven Michalske wrote:
* a schematic symbol represents some or all of a component
* a component might satisfy the functionality indicated by more than
one symbol
* a component comes in one or more
On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
What really pains me - is that development has pretty much stagnated -
because we can't seem to get _anything_ new into the suite to help
provide basic functionality other packages take for granted.
Nobody *ever* objects to adding another
On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
It is a perfect example of why gEDA can never grow more friendly
interfaces to these problems. _Because_ the existing interface
can be
Yes GTK. I thought I looked in that menu but only saw you can change
the colors of the pcb layers, I didn't see an option for background. I
guess I must have missed it. I'll check when I get home from work and
I'll give your colors a try, thanks.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Peter Clifton
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:17:02 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
It is a perfect example of why gEDA can never grow more friendly
interfaces to these problems. _Because_ the existing interface can be
abused - and people think it is a good idea to encourage such
flexibility, we end up with designs out
John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote:
A powerful component of an electronic design *automation* process.
Not the usual fritterware tool that forces you to tell it what to do,
repeatedly, by manual operation. Do graphics with GUI, do flow with
scripts. High productivity rather than cute a
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Werner Hoch wrote:
Hi Chitlesh,
If I have installed guile-gnome-platform-devel, then gwave runs fine.
Without it, it crashes:
.
I think I've only a packaging error in my rpms.
Does anybody know, which of the files in the of the devel file list
should be
On 11/19/09, Ben Jackson b...@ben.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 03:37:47PM -0800, Anthony Shanks wrote:
Yes GTK. I thought I looked in that menu but only saw you can change
the colors of the pcb layers, I didn't see an option for background. I
guess I must have missed it. I'll check when
35 matches
Mail list logo
