Re: gEDA-user: Free Dog meeting report: Notes on the topics we discussed

[Ales Hvezda <ahvezda@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dan,

[snip]
>I wonder if its time to make use of AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS() and stick a very 
>brief configure.ac at the top level.  I've not done this before, but I 
>wonder if it would let you turn gaf from several tarballs and 
>./configure && make && make install invocations into 1 tarball and 1 
>config/install.  I think that would go a long way to making it easier 
>for most users.

	In theory, the toplevel makefile should take care of everything:

make
set the environment vars
make install

	and it's far simpler than a configure script.  gEDA/gaf is split
up the way it is to make the package maintainers happy.  However, I will
consider other alternatives like creating a super tarball or such.  Or maybe
just hope that Stuart's CDROM takes care of all such issues. :)

[... snip backannotation discussion that I'm still digesting ...]

[snip]
>I think the real issue is you may have geda installed libs which grow 
>over time, company-wide libs which grow over time, per-user libs, 
>per-project libs, etc. and sooner or later there will be a name clash. 
>Hopefully the rule of pick your project libs first then company libs, 
>then geda libs is usually correct, but it may not always be.
>

	Agreed that this is a problem and it was mentioned a long time ago
and there is even a bug filed against it.  And, yes, the name clash issue
is quite serious, however: 

	* if user A creates a schematic with local symbols and those
	  symbol libraries get put into the schematic

	* And user B gets the schematic and the local symbols,

doesn't that mean that user B, which most likely will have the symbols
in a differently named library, might not be able to open the schematic
error free?  Or maybe this is just a fact of life and user B will need
to modify the schematic.  Hmmmm:  Ease of use or possible havoc because
of a symbol name clash?

[snip]
>I think the octave wiki people have a list of allowed IP addresses for 
>posting to the wiki specifically for this problem.  Seems like a hack 
>though.  Is there no way to require a user/password to post?

	There are wiki's that do have auth systems and I am looking into
several.  Certainly a wide open wiki is completely non-workable in today's
hostile internet.
								-Ales