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=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=MOChVqyuwfiJ2lagS3261XAndTxgJkfCu+paP101/jk=;
	b=CRyCR4g7guMqT9YyQhgsVuQTvxM7j6tktDs4yfkgrD4KvV6egoTqcBhU4K7jnKani8
	HMDQ2szhtI5GReS3oidnEDUnCrTwjjDd7Nt8yVQDCDHgjE0INMsVz8+Tu4b5WSmZ5O6Z
	KJ5fQ3+d5GmmIjKsX1wxV4ZTE+d9g0OqlfsE7H9HK2gvn+CdELZQyMzOjyWXOu35Y2Mp
	32Yo+bFwW2W8exbFWZV42RIOmszfR6wCO3Fr/qVezKuDv02XMI7++/hVefxWNWzSEjs2
	aCAnaYuDHD1B0htuj179YEpQAFKddkZntM3PLSePBtUEAYB1+fUFVEH+Wx29yduRMgy5
	haVg==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.60.176.230 with SMTP id cl6mr24078664oec.56.1426694465456;
	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<5509443F.9050707@gmx.de>
References:	<CAHLh21Cdm=YZuqCQ+gCHSviJquahr6cnAQ-VBLR4BSs-nfHOig AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAOFvGD4+4bHXNYLvePi70wb_1A4=dQgb_Ov3xBghoKbXQUsSGA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<5508413E DOT 4000405 AT ecosensory DOT com>
	<46050a0c DOT 619 DOT 14c2850d052 DOT Webtop DOT 45 AT optonline DOT net>
	<CAGYR9veihi_M+B0HXptGYQLMO8=B_KOLM2wmrRNkMLG_9MdQrA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1503180357520 DOT 25799 AT igor2priv>
	<CAGYR9ve_n7VmZ8x-jCQK5eKHMNGp6an9o8EwYZnWQWFiCpGnXg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<5509443F DOT 9050707 AT gmx DOT de>
Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:01:05 -0800
Message-ID:	<CAC4O8c9svgpLKdzwVK5g3M59c3_R3u6ke=Tv4KOgexRU--vGOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] pcb alternatives
From:	Britton Kerin <britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Christian Wolf <ChristianLupus AT gmx DOT de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 18.03.2015 um 08:09 schrieb Bernhard Kraft:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:20 AM,  <gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu> wrote:
>>
>>> I think, at some point, it's be a real major step forward if the standard
>>> lib could be separated from gschem and pcb into a standalone package.
>>
>> I would say:
>>   * Lets start a project at github.
>>   * There we import the current structure from /usr/share/pcb
>> (debian/ubuntu) and create a subdirectory "structured".
>>   * If someone wants to help out he/she can post suggestions/pull requests
>>   * There we discuss and move (copy?) all components as required.
>>   * Because we are in the world of open source we can just create our
>> own package and make it available at debian/ubuntu launchpad
>>
>> Are you familiar with git?
>>
>> greetings,
>> Bernhard
>
> I would think of this as very important to allow gEDA to keep productive,
> I used it now for several smaller projects and had everytime minor problems
> with the board. Once there was a wron polarity of a diode (this problem was
> already mentioned), once I accidentially placed a component in a wrong
> package (16 instead of 14 pins, nasty, I know), etc. In the end I asked
> myself if I was willing to buy some other framework or continue working with
> gEDA as it is rigid and cumbersome in quite many cases where you have to
> check everything manually.
>
> When I started making my own library it got better as I knew what I did...
> Thus I would be interested if you started a "new" library project to merge
> in custom parts.
> If I could help, please tell me.
>
> But I would suggest something more:
> Why not putting all availabe symbols in the library?

What we have now is sort of the left-over residue of the last attempt at that.
Nobody takes the library of schematic symbols that come with gschem seriously,
but you can sort of tell they were once intended to be.

> I mean put the basic symbols that everybody might need into the main part of
> it. Then one could add additional directories (?) or something similar) to
> put specialized packages etc in. This would allow for advanced users to get
> things running faster if everything is consistent (which is the main problem
> in the whole library issue).
> I am not a friend of throwing things away :-)

The trouble is there's almost as many way of doing symbols/footprints as
there are gEDA users.  The possibly realistic way to leverage them all would
be to establish some sort of standard interface from which they could be
build, like the make-based system that debian has for software packages.

I posted about this before:

  http://www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi?p=geda-user/2015/02/05/12:32:13

Britton

- Raw text -