With gnetlist 1.7.0 (g9b9080e) a new check for attribute sanity seems
to be in place. Unfortunately, it does not play nice with multi part
symbols. For each of my opamps, that have a separate power symbol I get:
/
Possible attribute conflict for refdes: U7
name: value
Hi all,
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of Peter Clifton
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 3:49 PM
To: gEDA user mailing list
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: New Column: From the CAD Library
On Fri,
Bert Timmerman wrote:
I would like to see some, if not all, of these standards reflected in the
pcb-lib some day _and_ these recommendations end up in the (gEDA) pcb
documentation, just to prevent error 404 from happening.
copy-paste would require that he releases the text under GPL, or
Just found out, that the pcb binary I compiled from git and installed
to /usr/local uses /usr/share/pcb/gpcb-menu.res
Is this intentional? I'd have expected it to use
/usr/local/share/pcb/gpcb-menu.res
After all, this is where the gpcb-menu.res went on make install
---)kaimartin(---
--
Hi.
While teaching students howto use geda/pcb, I found myself explain
that lock-names does not really a lock but an ignore flag. Because,
this is how it operates under the hood. In addition, the lock meme
does not quite fit to the behavior. You'd expect locked text to stay
in place whatever
Hi Kai-Martin,
-Original Message-
From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
[mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of
Kai-Martin Knaak
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 2:17 PM
To: geda-u...@seul.org
Subject: gEDA-user: locknames - ignorenames ?
Hi.
While teaching
Bert Timmerman wrote:
If the lock mechanism is not broken, please do not try to fix it ;-)
Currently, we have two kinds of lock mechanisms in pcb. One is mediated
by the lock tool. Objects locked by this tool are pinned down at their
current place. There is no way to select them or generally
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 10:55 +0100, Bert Timmerman wrote:
One of Tom's issues that is to be kept in pcb are most of the mil grids
because of the bazillion perf board and mil based parts on the market, to be
bought for cheap by hobby-ists, or for Quick-and-Neat proto boards (we
don't play or do
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 14:16 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Proposal: Rename Lock_Names to Ignore_Names
(in the menu and in the source)
Any objection?
File a bug on LP please. I don't oppose, and what you suggest does may
sense. The only down-side is the need to update documentation, and to
What do you do with vertical_toolbar.patch? Is there something you can
do to the gschemrc file?
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Mark Rages [1]markra...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I switched my gschem to have a vertical toolbox on the left, rather
than a horizontal toolbox
On 02/06/2011 09:24 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
Imperial parts are not a problem for a sufficiently fine metric grid.
+1
I heard Tom Hausherr talk last year about grids, land pattern generators.
For his suggestion to just go metric, it works with old inch spaced
protoboard layouts just fine if
On 2/6/2011 10:24 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 10:55 +0100, Bert Timmerman wrote:
One of Tom's issues that is to be kept in pcb are most of the mil grids
because of the bazillion perf board and mil based parts on the market, to be
bought for cheap by hobby-ists, or for
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 05:07:06AM +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Another cite from the master attribute list:
/--
numslots=# should exist somewhere in the symbol and be made invisible.
This is a free standing or floating attribute. If the symbol does not
need slotting,
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:27 -0500, rickman wrote:
Parts should match the rest of a system I think. The dimensions of a
part can be stored in the units that best suit the system. It seems
silly to store a part as metric and let the system round it off to
inches on the fly rather than to
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 10:29 -0500, Rob Butts wrote:
What do you do with vertical_toolbar.patch? Is there something you can
do to the gschemrc file?
It was a patch against the source-code, so you would have to apply it to
a checked out version of the gEDA sources and rebuild / install from
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 08:47:05PM +0300, Vladimir Zhbanov wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 05:07:06AM +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
The master attribute list explicitly requires all symbols to contain
an numslots attribute, even if slotting does not apply at all. IIRC,
gnetlist does not
Vladimir Zhbanov wrote:
This affects also the 'Symbol Creation Howto' and the gsymcheck symbol
checker itself.
ack.
These are supposed to track the contents of the master attributes
list. So yes, gsymcheck needs to be changed in unison.
Would you like to change gsymcheck behaviour (that
No Peter, I've never installed gEDA from rpm. I installed Fedora 14 and
then through the software manager installed the gEDA software. I take
it a vertical menu bar is not possible to configure in the gschemrc
file?
At some point I'd like to figure out the whole cvs gEDA thing.
Am 06.02.2011 um 16:24 schrieb Peter Clifton:
Imperial parts are not a problem for a sufficiently fine metric
grid. I
don't think we should remove the option of working on a Mil grid
though.
I'm wondering what's the advantage of having an internal grid at all.
Why not just use doubles,
19 matches
Mail list logo
