Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/30/02:56:07
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2015, at 12:17 AM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:22 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:29 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A common netlist/bom format with a canonical form (so equivalent netlists would be identical) would be a useful intermediate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could work. To me, the current patch format is much cleaner. I already have fully working code both in pcb-rnd and gschem. If you implement an alternative solution that is at least as capable, let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> I?m not saying get rid of your patch format. But you took a shortcut generally not available by having pcb make the patch directly.
>>>>
>>>> False. I did make a shortcut, but on a totally different level of abstraction.
>>>
>>> Only available to the geda-gaf->pcb flow.
>>
>> Nope, it's available in the pcb->geda-gaf flow. Not due to the format, not due to the shortcut. Only because I did't implement it for anything else.
>>
>> Please provide your reasoning why anything else couldn't emit a similar format!
>
> Not directly from a tool whose code you can?t modify. Indirectly through through additional scripts, of course, which is my proposal.
That is not a property of the format we choose. That's a property of the
program. If we go that way, the only acceptable format would be
one of the formats osmond can already directly export.
>
> How would you implement this for Osmond PCB?
I'll always show both directions.
[gschem] --sch--> [gnetlist] --whateverformat1--> [osmond]
[osmond] --whateverformat2--> [script] --patch--> [gschem]
Depending on the "whateverformat2", the script may need access to the
original netlist (form the gschem->osmond path). Also depending on the
format the script may have major functionality overlap with gnetlist. If
that's the case, it may be reasonable to implement the script within
gnetlist.
This is one possible flow. There are other possible flows with other
tools. The one currently implemnted is:
[gschem] --sch--> [gsch2pcb] --multiplefiles--> [pcb]
[pcb] --patch--> [gschem]
My point was that the fact osmond can't directly emit the patch format
doesn't invalidate other flows where it is possible. It also doesn't tell
anything about the format itself - it only tells anything about osmond. It
also doesn't seem to be more complicated than the other direction
(actually looks exactly the same in complexity).
Thus I can't agree with saying that either the flow or the format is not
generic enough because you need the same extra step in osmond->gschem
direction that you need in gschem->osmond direction.
- Raw text -