I initially posted this to -dev by mistake. DJ has already addressed item
#11.
Peter
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: gEDA-dev: Parts DB API: the story so far
Date: Tuesday 18 Dec 2007
From: Peter TB Brett <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gEDA developer mailing list <geda-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi folks,
There's been some useful comments, but the thread's been slightly diverted.
I'd like to summarise what I understand to be the varying opinions so far.
Please tell me where I'm wrong.
1. I think that everybody agrees that _whatever_ is done must present a simple
interface to the user, and be fairly straightforward for new users to work
out how to use.
2. I think that everybody agrees that the new system must be fully
back-compatible with the existing library system.
3. Several people would like assurances that the system will be generic enough
to cope with workflows other than schematic to PCB layout (such as ASIC
design).
4. Most people seem keen on the idea of being able to place light symbols, and
then later replace it with or turn it into a heavy symbol as required.
5. Lots of people railed at me about embedding symbols, for no apparent
reason. Cheers, guys.
6. I proposed the idea that most symbol placement should occur from a list
of "active" components, and that this list could be customised in the config
files. No-one seemed to object to this idea.
7. Some people preferred the idea of placing a light symbol, then populating
it with attributes from a database. Other people liked the idea of placing a
light symbol, then replacing it with a compatible heavy symbol, possibly
generated from a database. It was suggested that in the former case, the
database interface should be in gattrib rather than gschem.
8. Some people got side-tracked discussing the nature of attributes, and
whether attribute editing should take place in gschem or gattrib.
9. John Griessen was keen to make sure that everybody knows that he doesn't
like human-incompatible GUID numbers, and needed reassuring that he didn't
have to have any if he didn't want them. (I don't like them either).
10. John Doty is very keen on being able to set up libgeda to automatically
copy any symbols used to a local symbol store of some description.
11. Several people are keen on the idea of changing everything to use a
separate BOM as a master document. I don't understand what they heck they're
talking about nor how it would work, so I would like them to spell it out
carefully for stupid people like me. To me, a BOM is a spreadsheet,
generated from the schematics, containing a list of refdeses and part
information which is sent to an assembly house so they know which bits to put
where.
12. I suggested a (fairly detailed) possible implementation, which was largely
ignored, so I'd like people to go read it before they make any further
comments please. Message-Id: <200712191056.21450.peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
That's about it in terms of what's been discussed so far. Keep the ideas
coming please...
Peter
--
Peter Brett
Electronic Systems Engineer
Integral Informatics Ltd
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user