Re: gEDA-user: How to deal with single/dual parts?

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:53 +0000, Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:

> > I think I'd prefer flexible mechanism instead of multiple mechanism
> > doing almost the same.
> 
> Fine, condemn us to the status quo - where gEDA has no ability to
> identify potential gate-swaps automatically, (or pass them to the layout
> tool to do so).

<Peter C went temporarily crazy with his rather over-exaggerated reply,
no personal offence was meant - I just got rather frustrated with the
situation...>


I'm not condemning gEDA for wanting to retain ultimate flexibility, nor
the requirement that gEDA must be kept capable of driving nearly _any_
work-flow.. that is good.

I'm not to bothered that this means we need to think _really_ carefully
before hacking features into gschem / libgeda - certainly not allowing
them to detract from, or break valid work-flows. Yes, it slows down the
addition of new features - but that is probably good too.

What really pains me - is that development has pretty much stagnated -
because we can't seem to get _anything_ new into the suite to help
provide basic functionality other packages take for granted.


Sorry, John, but libgeda needs to know (in conjunction with specialist
behavioural modules, which could be work-flow dependant), what the
circuit _means_ at a netlist level.

If we defer EVERYTHING to gnetlist time, we might as well give up trying
to make the schematic editor help the user with back / forward
annotation, live cross-probing to other tools, whatever - since the
problem can't be explicitly defined.

I agree we need to keep the current flexibility, but I think the
architecture design needs to be revisited. You can't pretend that the
meaning of every single attribute can be left unspecified until gnetlist
time. If you do, gschem is forever condemned to do nothing more
sophisticated than edit graphics.

> My battery is running low, so I'm going to send this now..

I probably ought to have taken it as a sign _not_ to send it of course..
it actually hibernated mid way though sending!

Now I'm sending this one, which started out as an apology for my
explosion - then got ranty again.. proper apology might follow tomorrow,
or when I'm calmer.


Best wishes (+ angry ranting)

Peter C.




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