X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:54:46 -0400
Message-Id: <201507290054.t6T0skD3022134@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <mp966r$9qc$1@ger.gmane.org> (message from Kai-Martin Knaak on
	Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:19:37 +0200)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] bug? in Gerber Export in PCB
References: <55B6674B DOT 9080108 AT buffalo DOT edu> <201507271725 DOT t6RHPkdo007711 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <mp62qe$c27$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <201507272127 DOT t6RLRwjG019810 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <mp966r$9qc$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
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


> I still don't quite get it. Can't the GUI fire a file chooser and 
> collect what other option the user chooses? It then calls the gerber 
> HID and passes the file name and options as parameters. Just like my 
> bash script does. Actually, this is how I always thought export in the 
> GTK-GUI works. Seems like I was wrong.

The GUI gets a list of attributes that need to be filled in.  It's not
"I need a gerber, so choose a file, then call the gerber exporter";
it's "I need to export, so call the gerber exporter, it tells me I
need to choose a file."

The list of attributes might not include any file names, it might
require several.  For *each* attribute that's a file/path, you need to
let the user choose a file.

> > We could, if someone wanted to, and figured out to integrate that
> > flag into the UI.
> 
> Add a column of check boxes to the table in File->Preferences->Groups
> Let the user check which layers should be considered as copper.
> That was easy :-)

Did you do all three GUIs? ;-)

> > Of course, those with the time to do so (few)
> > usually prefer a more general solution than that.
> 
> Hmm, I understand the reasoning. But unless my memory fails, there was 
> talk about a general solution being necessary but too much work at 
> least since back in 2008.

Yup.