Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Seems good to me. I do propose to make the scriptimg action menu default om master after the next stable release. Den 29. dec. 2017 23.41 skrev "Wayne Stambaugh" : I just pushed the updated build config with all of the options enabled except KICAD_SCRIPTING_ACTION_MENU. We

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I just pushed the updated build config with all of the options enabled except KICAD_SCRIPTING_ACTION_MENU. We shall see how this plays out. On 12/28/2017 07:09 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote: > I think the original patch on the 5th of dec from Christoffer is useful. > This enables the mentioned

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I don't have the original patch laying around so I will change this. One option I am not sure about is KICAD_SCRIPTING_ACTION_MENU. I haven't used this so I don't know if it makes sense for us to enable it. Anyone using this regularly? If so, please add your input so I can make an informed

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I think the original patch on the 5th of dec from Christoffer is useful. This enables the mentioned options. This is without the spice message thing, which I think is redundant and not pretty if we include Maciej's patch to print the build config, 7th of dec patch. Nick 2017-12-27 23:49

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

As a macOS package dev, I am in favor of enabling everything that isn't experimental by default. This means I have to be explicit about things I am disabling. Adam On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > All of your arguments are valid. For me

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

All of your arguments are valid. For me personally, I'm fine with enabling everything that's ready for release since I build from source and it's not an issue on any of the platforms I use for development. If that is the consensus, then I will enable them. I'm just trying to be fair to our

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

2017-12-27 23:04 GMT+01:00 Wayne Stambaugh : > Here are my thoughts on the current options that are disable be default. > Nothing is experimental except USE_WX_GRAPHICS_CONTEXT which really > shouldn't be used and the WX_OVERLAY which is macos specific. > > KICAD_SCRIPTING,

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Here are my thoughts on the current options that are disable be default. Nothing is experimental except USE_WX_GRAPHICS_CONTEXT which really shouldn't be used and the WX_OVERLAY which is macos specific. KICAD_SCRIPTING, I'm fine with setting this to ON now that we have a sane solution for Python

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I think that this message is important, and I feel a decision on this matter features has to be done by the project manager, basically give a pointer to what should be used to as far extent as possible. Wayne, this is a package dev that wants to know this and while I do not know who are

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Hi, On 07.12.2017 19:08, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. it is possible kicad could have > different feature sets depending on the availability of dependencies on > the target platform. The kicad project has no control over this. If a > platform doesn't have

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

On 12/7/2017 11:59 AM, kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > I still think this is strange reasoning, so the version 5 will be built > differently on every system? I thought v5 should include the spice > simulator? > > Are you saying there is no recommended way to deliver kicad? So when I > send a file to

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

… I wouldn’t bet that some program/package with various compile options has the same set of features activated on Debian, Arch, whatever other Linux distribution… At least, that’s my experience with some packages I used. Regards, Bernhard > On 7. Dec 2017, at 17:59, kristoffer Ödmark

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I still think this is strange reasoning, so the version 5 will be built differently on every system? I thought v5 should include the spice simulator? Are you saying there is no recommended way to deliver kicad? So when I send a file to my friend on windows, he might not be able to do the same

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Orson, The list contains far more information than the feature build options. I would prefer that it only include variables defined by using the cmake option() macro. What I would really like is the output to include the option description similar to using autotools `configure --help` with the

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I hope users are no longer building kicad from source. We tried that already and it was a disaster. The build options should reflect the dependencies available on the platform it's being built on. Whether or not an optional feature is ready for release is not relevant. For example if ngspice

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Oops, fixed version attached. Thank you for checking. Regards, Orson On 12/07/2017 11:35 AM, Clemens Koller wrote: > Hi! > > FYI: Your patch also touches OPENGL_GAL::BitmapText()... > > Regards, > Clemens > > On 2017-12-07 09:27, Maciej Sumiński wrote: >> The attached patch lists options that

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Hi! FYI: Your patch also touches OPENGL_GAL::BitmapText()... Regards, Clemens On 2017-12-07 09:27, Maciej Sumiński wrote: > The attached patch lists options that have "KICAD" in their name when > calling CMake: > > -- Build configuration: > -- KICAD_BIN=bin > -- KICAD_BRANCH_NAME= > --

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I am still lacking a clear documentation about which options are inte official releases, or planned to be. On 2017-12-07 09:27, Maciej Sumiński wrote: The attached patch lists options that have "KICAD" in their name when calling CMake: -- Build configuration: -- KICAD_BIN=bin --

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

The attached patch lists options that have "KICAD" in their name when calling CMake: -- Build configuration: -- KICAD_BIN=bin -- KICAD_BRANCH_NAME= -- KICAD_DATA=share/kicad -- KICAD_DEMOS=share/kicad/demos -- KICAD_DOCS=share/doc/kicad -- KICAD_INSTALL_DEMOS=ON --

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

ccmake is only useful when you aren't interested in scripting builds. It is a decent tool to discover the options but I would much prefer cmake --show-options to having to open up a GUI app. On 12/06/2017 06:13 PM, Jacob Schmidt wrote: > I got frustrated a while back because people were talking

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I got frustrated a while back because people were talking about the spice integration like it was a real thing, but I had never seen it. That lead me to google how to list cmake options, and I found ccmake. ccmake is a wrapper around cmake that was useful to me. Maybe it will be for someone

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Are we not in feature freeze, the features that I enabled by default is from my understanding the ones that will be built into the official ones. And yes, the people that are compiling a non-standard install shuld be savvy enough to be change the compilation settings. That is why i think the

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

On 12/5/2017 12:31 PM, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > On 05.12.2017 17:30, Maciej Sumiński wrote: > >> When you build a program, do you always go through its build manual or >> do you start with 'cmake .. && make'? I think there is no point >> enforcing an optional dependency. Another good

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Hi, On 06.12.2017 11:12, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > I do not see why anyone is even objecting to this? Where is the logic at > having a default build that does not correspond to any of the official > packages?! That usually happens because the nightly builds enable all the experimental features

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

The subtle difference is your resolve wx dependency with 'apt-get install libwxgtk' and to get libngspice you need to cast a few spells when there is no package. On 12/05/2017 06:02 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote: > But it would also fail to build if you did not install wx. > > Den 5. dec. 2017 5.21

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I sent the wrong patch before attached the correct now. Silently compiling something else then what was expected is much much worse than failing. I do not see why anyone is even objecting to this? Where is the logic at having a default build that does not correspond to any of the official

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Hi, On 05.12.2017 17:30, Maciej Sumiński wrote: > When you build a program, do you always go through its build manual or > do you start with 'cmake .. && make'? I think there is no point > enforcing an optional dependency. Another good solution would be to > autodetect libngspice and enable the

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

This patch changes the default build values in cmake, and adds an instruction on how to disable the the spice simulator in the cmake error. -Kristoffer On 12/05/2017 05:30 PM, Maciej Sumiński wrote: When you build a program, do you always go through its build manual or do you start with

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

But it would also fail to build if you did not install wx. Den 5. dec. 2017 5.21 PM skrev "Kevin Cozens" : On 2017-12-05 09:05 AM, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > Here I attach a small patch that changes the default compile-flags to the > ones in the released packages. > Enabling

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I always try to build the package that everyone else is running, and no I do not consult the build manual until i have to. That is also why I have only tested the simulator that will now be inside v5. Since we are in feature freeze, and the simulator will be part of kicad. I think that the

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

When you build a program, do you always go through its build manual or do you start with 'cmake .. && make'? I think there is no point enforcing an optional dependency. Another good solution would be to autodetect libngspice and enable the simulator if it is available. On 12/05/2017 05:18 PM,

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

On 2017-12-05 09:05 AM, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: Here I attach a small patch that changes the default compile-flags to the ones in the released packages. Enabling SPICE support by default will break my build unless I turn it off. Seeing a recent message about SPICE support I wanted to have a

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Isn't it good enough to mention it under the KiCad Build Configuration Options in the devdocs as it is already? 2017-12-05 16:56 GMT+01:00 Maciej Sumiński : > If everyone agrees that Spice simulator should be enabled by default, > then please display a note saying it is

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

If everyone agrees that Spice simulator should be enabled by default, then please display a note saying it is optional and might be disabled for cases when it is not found by CMake. Regards, Orson On 12/05/2017 03:47 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote: > If they are not available for some reason the

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I dont see why they should not be able to disable these options in that case, I dont think we should adapt our builds for the majority to suit the needs of the minority. - Kristoffer On 12/05/2017 03:33 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: Can we guarantee that these build dependencies are available

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

If they are not available for some reason the packager for that platform can disable the feature until he figures out how to support the feature. I don't really see the rationale in having supported features be enabled explicitly. 2017-12-05 15:33 GMT+01:00 Wayne Stambaugh

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Can we guarantee that these build dependencies are available on all platforms? I'm primarily think of BSD devs. For the windows, macos, and linux devs there are no issues. On 12/5/2017 9:28 AM, Nick Østergaard wrote: > I would personally also like to see these options enabled by default. It >

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I would personally also like to see these options enabled by default. It makes it easier for a packager to be convinced what options to enable... :) 2017-12-05 15:05 GMT+01:00 Kristoffer Ödmark : > I checked the default package in Ubuntu ppa through a friend. Indeed

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I checked the default package in Ubuntu ppa through a friend. Indeed all of this is enabled. Here I attach a small patch that changes the default compile-flags to the ones in the released packages. Its a small fix and it doesnt add or remove anything really, just a changes how a default build

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Den 4. dec. 2017 18.50 skrev "kristoffer Ödmark" < kristofferodmar...@gmail.com>: On 2017-12-04 15:22, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote: > Kristoffer, > > You're very welcome to specify how you'd like to have the Spice-related > fields organized - but remember it's not only the integrated ngspice >

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Hi! On 2017-12-04 21:33, Maciej Suminski wrote: As far as I remember the simulator is enabled in Windows nightlies since October last year. Does not it work for you? To be honest, I havent tested the windows version, I dont really run a windows installation anywhere. I just falsely assumed If

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Hi Kristoffer, On 12/04/2017 06:50 PM, kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > > > On 2017-12-04 15:22, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote: >> Kristoffer, >> >> You're very welcome to specify how you'd like to have the Spice-related >> fields organized - but remember it's not only the integrated ngspice >> simulator

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

I would ofcourse, Might have to ask some questions though since I am a bit unfamiliar with this code and well, kicad code in general :) Without having had a look, A few of them looks quite trivial at first glance. I would start with 1, then then 4, then 3. The others requres a bit more

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

On 04/12/17 18:50, kristoffer Ödmark wrote: >> > Okay, My suggestions: > > 1. Enable the spice simulator by default and start shipping it with > windows nightlies. This way we will find much more bugs. Because I doubt > everyone is running with the simulator on even on nightlies. Same goes > for

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

On 2017-12-04 15:22, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote: Kristoffer, You're very welcome to specify how you'd like to have the Spice-related fields organized - but remember it's not only the integrated ngspice simulator that relies on them. People have been exporting PSpice netlists from Kicad for a

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

On 04/12/17 11:50, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > Hello! > > What is the official status on the simulator part going towards v5? Will > it be included or not. I just tried it and I really like the features in > it, its basically ready to be used as a simulator and compete and > conquer ltspice. > >

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

On 12/4/2017 5:50 AM, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > Hello! > > What is the official status on the simulator part going towards v5? Will > it be included or not. I just tried it and I really like the features in > it, its basically ready to be used as a simulator and compete and > conquer ltspice. >

Re: [Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:50:29AM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > Hello! > > What is the official status on the simulator part going towards v5? Will it > be included or not. I just tried it and I really like the features in it, > its basically ready to be used as a simulator and compete and

[Kicad-developers] Simulator towards 5.0

Hello! What is the official status on the simulator part going towards v5? Will it be included or not. I just tried it and I really like the features in it, its basically ready to be used as a simulator and compete and conquer ltspice. What i do not like is the way it stores information, in