X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=uhuNdABKRFuOjFrAwqx1YX3rGBa+qwhZtEitdVI0i7U=;
        b=NmxWD/umqv0Z9D796jWG/8LYh/AUR2tmTHVaOhlt0SQTPTraezf34nAVHm2ffFHv6h
         OOQ3G+2vHpgHjco6JNPTAPpYOeDND7gtSXLVRzGGvbFQQoX3xkDzIOdZU8nSwo6vYPFx
         b/7Xh4WGinNe8b9qKt669n+ozZpEHaqfKZBcQ=
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 20:08:03 +0100
From: Cyril Hrubis <metan DOT lists AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] duplicate refdes values
Message-ID: <20111108190803.GE6940@yumi>
References: <20111108100616 DOT GA32119 AT yumi>
 <89AF1CB2-6703-4ABC-A43D-7EA37559426F AT noqsi DOT com>
 <20111108180039 DOT GA6472 AT yumi>
 <201111081833 DOT pA8IXpek012142 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201111081833.pA8IXpek012142@envy.delorie.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Hi!
> > I'm saying this is a bug, I'm saying that this is worth a warning. What
> > about warning about duplicated refdes for syms that has no slotting
> > defined?

Ah, sorry, there is 'not' missing in the first sentence. :) But still I
think this is worth of some work.

> Unfortunately, that's a very common case these days.  *Most* of my
> designs have at least one such component, usually an MCU that I've
> split into 2-3 blocks (power, bus, I/O).

So you have three syms for one component and one footprint. Do the pins
of the syms overlap or not?

> The tricky part is being *reliable* about detecting overlapping
> refdes's vs an intentionally split-up component.  You have to consider
> all the possible situations and plan accordingly.

I think I'm starting to see the problems here.

> Also, just "saying this is a bug" doesn't get stuff done.  If you want
> it done, you need to be willing to do it too.

Hey, I've said I would do a patch for gsch2pcb in the first mail and I'm
still willing to do that if we figure right way to do it.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis