Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/08/25/11:33:49
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090207060304090804070504
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 25/08/15 16:51, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM, myken <myken AT iae DOT nl> wrote:
>> On 25/08/15 15:18, John Doty wrote:
>>
>> Isn't the whole idea in this thread "let's make gschem/pcb more accessible”?
>>
>> Yes, but the answer looks *completely* different depending on whether you’re
>> coming from a pcb (integrated tool) or geda-gaf (toolkit) perspective.
>>
>>
>> It must be my lack of understanding the English language but I don't think
>> there is anyone on this list disputing the power, flexibility, simplicity
>> and usability of the geda-gaf (gschem) toolkit. Well I don't.
>> If I understand what I have read there is no one that wants to restrict the
>> functionality of gschem.
>> If anything I guess there is a bigger change that pcb will move towards
>> gschem (geda) then the other way around.
> The PCB developers are the current majority.
Maybe, but that doesn't automatically mean the gschem (geda)
architecture will change!
I use geda-gaf for schematic entry, simulation, VHDL design and PCB
design. It is a great tool, just the way it is. I don't want it to change.
But I do see a great benefit in a more accessible toolkit (including
pcb). If that means adding an additional button in the menu bar, so be it.
>> All people try to do is find a way to make the combination more accessible.
>> I don't mind adding the restriction "looking from the geda-gaf perspective",
>> if that makes us move forward.
> *gschem needs a more viable plugin interface so that people can
> implement their desired gschem and pcb relationship with out
> subjecting the rest of us too it.*
Sound great to me. Anyone opposes this? Can we move forward from here?
--------------090207060304090804070504
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/08/15 16:51, Evan Foss
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:evanfoss AT gmail DOT com">evanfoss AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM2RGhRYZ5Mxf8yUqsSmQ0Uzdb-4jc6-cSCKQ4kiMS6bOfEiHg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM, myken <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:myken AT iae DOT nl"><myken AT iae DOT nl></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 25/08/15 15:18, John Doty wrote:
Isn't the whole idea in this thread "let's make gschem/pcb more accessible”?
Yes, but the answer looks *completely* different depending on whether you’re
coming from a pcb (integrated tool) or geda-gaf (toolkit) perspective.
It must be my lack of understanding the English language but I don't think
there is anyone on this list disputing the power, flexibility, simplicity
and usability of the geda-gaf (gschem) toolkit. Well I don't.
If I understand what I have read there is no one that wants to restrict the
functionality of gschem.
If anything I guess there is a bigger change that pcb will move towards
gschem (geda) then the other way around.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The PCB developers are the current majority.</pre>
</blockquote>
Maybe, but that doesn't automatically mean the gschem (geda)
architecture will change!<br>
I use geda-gaf for schematic entry, simulation, VHDL design and PCB
design. It is a great tool, just the way it is. I don't want it to
change.<br>
But I do see a great benefit in a more accessible toolkit (including
pcb). If that means adding an additional button in the menu bar, so
be it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM2RGhRYZ5Mxf8yUqsSmQ0Uzdb-4jc6-cSCKQ4kiMS6bOfEiHg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">All people try to do is find a way to make the combination more accessible.
I don't mind adding the restriction "looking from the geda-gaf perspective",
if that makes us move forward.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
<b>gschem needs a more viable plugin interface so that people can
implement their desired gschem and pcb relationship with out
subjecting the rest of us too it.</b></pre>
</blockquote>
Sound great to me. Anyone opposes this? Can we move forward from
here?<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------090207060304090804070504--
- Raw text -