Re: gEDA-user: Creating bill of materials?

[John Hudak <jjhudak@xxxxxxxxx>]

   On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:40 PM, John Doty <[1]jpd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

     On Aug 18, 2011, at 4:05 PM, John Hudak wrote:
       So, this causes me to ask the question: Why hasen't gattrib been

          removed from:[3][2]http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gaf ???? as
     well as
         any
          other instances?
       Perhaps because some of us use it.

        While the concept is good, the implementation is worthless, and
        apparently has been 'around' with the same sort of problems since
        2006.

       It's useful for "touch up" of a few attributes, but not for the
     broad
       changes you want.  The spreadsheet approach really doesn't scale
     well
       anyway. If you have 300 bypass capacitors in a project, it's much
     more
       efficient to have a "heavy" project-specific bypass capacitor
     symbol
       with all of the necessary attributes inside it. Then, to change
     your
       bypass capacitor selection, you need only edit that one symbol
     rather
       than 300 instances.
       Unfortunately, gattrib is an orphan: its developer is no longer
     active
       on the gEDA project. So, although it remains useful within its
     limits,
       nobody is fixing its bugs. Do you wish to volunteer?

       As a person who is trying to give the gEDA approach a try,
        frustrations mount daily in trying to make progress.

       There is no gEDA approach. There are many gEDA approaches. gEDA is
     a
       toolkit, not an integrated tool. If you expect it to lead you down
     some
       specific usage pathway you will be disappointed. Part of the game
     is
       adapting it to the flow your job needs. Its power is that you
     *can*
       adapt it to *your* needs: you aren't stuck with an approach
       that doesn't fit those needs.

        This brings up another issue that I am curious about....the one of
        component symbol libraries.
        My expectation (hope, guess?) was with an effort that is open
       source,
        users would contribute their symbols to the library,

       User-contributed symbols are available at [3]gedasymbols.org.

       and the symbol
        library would be huge.  I didn't find that reality.  I assumed
   this
        because users would 'giveback' to the community.  Clearly some
   have
        done this. I plan on doing this (if I continue down this path).
   So
       why
        hasen't the component mfgs been inclined to develop and contribute
        symbols?  Why hasen't the users contributed more?

       I think it's partly because symbols are often specialized to a
       particular project or approach.

        Perhaps there are
        not too many users.  Perhaps it is a case of: The tools have been
       built
        but the users are not comming.    Anyway, just curious....

       Well, if you go to my area at [4]gedasymbols.org, you'll find
     symbols for
       VLSI design and symbolic circuit analysis. Those won't work for
     pcb.
       But they're useful for their intended purposes.
       John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
       [5]http://www.noqsi.com/
       [6]jpd@xxxxxxxxx

   _______________________________________________
   geda-user mailing list
   [7]geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   [8]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

   "There is no gEDA approach. There are many gEDA approaches. gEDA is a
     toolkit, not an integrated tool. If you expect it to lead you down
   some
     specific usage pathway you will be disappointed. Part of the game is
     adapting it to the flow your job needs. Its power is that you *can*
     adapt it to *your* needs: you aren't stuck with an approach
     that doesn't fit those needs."
   With all due respect, I have read/heard this philosophy a number of
   times. I don't expect and never have expected to be lead anywhere.  If
   one reads the [9]http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gaf website, there is a
   clear impression that these tools can work together in some fashion.
   That fashion is dictated by what ever the users end goal is. This
   strongly implies a lot of 'flexibility', which means that the tools
   have been tested for interopeability.  There is, however, a very clear
   statement about one tool using another tools output, performing some
   function, and perhaps generating output that can be used by the
   upstream tool or downstream tool.  If this funtionality does not work,
   and even go so far as to corrupt either the input file or the resultant
   output file, then, quite simply, the tool is worthless.  (Which makes
   me wonder why anyone would use a flakey tool to do anything to
   something they have spent so much time developing at the risk of having
   it broken/destroyed).
   As far a spreadsheet approach scaling well, I also beg to differ. A
   simple global substitute on a unique string will fix the probem. Even a
   global search with selective substitution will be more efficient than a
   tool that will not allow one to accomplish the task. With the power of
   the scripting language/macro language in a well known commercial
   spreadsheet, one can do just about anything. Now if your spreadsheet
   tool is brain-damaged, then one is screwed.  Thankfully there are some
   good spreadsheet programs around.
   -John

References

   1. mailto:jpd@xxxxxxxxx
   2. http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gaf
   3. http://gedasymbols.org/
   4. http://gedasymbols.org/
   5. http://www.noqsi.com/
   6. mailto:jpd@xxxxxxxxx
   7. mailto:geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   8. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
   9. http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gaf


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user