On Dec 25, 2010, at 12:49 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Often", perhaps, but not usually. No matter how you slice it, the
most common way to use such a symbol and its corresponding physical
representation is as a component on a circuit board or in an IC.
Maybe for you.
Your opinion doesn't change the statistics. gEDA is most often used to
design circuit boards.
The tyranny of the majority, again.
Yes it is. It is extremely important that gEDA remain the excellent
tool for these jobs that it is.
Extremely? Not at all. It's only as as important as the people willing
to work on it make it.
Maybe to you gEDA is just one of the crowd of hobbyist EDA tools. It is
much more to me.
They won't if the attitude of "I don't care to know about any flow
except pcb, and all I want is my version of the pcb flow" isn't
vigorously opposed.
You've yet to prove that that attitude actually exists.
I'm still cleaning up from the mess created when the default attribute
promotion policy was changed a couple of years ago, apparently to better
serve the perceived needs of small scale pcb projects. It's easy to fix
in gafrc, but you had to know to do it before populating your schems
with unwanted promoted footprints. Some developer just wasn't thinking
about the breadth of the application space.
Yup, we're tyrants because we want to make it easier for 99% of our
users to get their jobs done.
But you aren't. A special purpose pcb-centric symbol/footprint library
would be a fine substitute for the eclectic default library. For those
users who would do better with it, it would be "here, install this". But
nobody's done that. Changing the default library piecemeal won't solve
the problem, and will break things.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx