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=K3Ru/Kx5ENY5T2ZC44mrPDbPPrcwSPz00rL+VTTVbhM=;
	b=Hd+k7vV6YSXkdRCTrjg8iZEl8ShCmA6rm1+7SwuySBSK9j6AyaX/LI1NTGLZTxmqAZ
	6yH4ygTTRxon5sEIA5dPzzMX38HTfyLaylTKaZ4X+Q0dZz8rIzVpBNZ4KwRtyiopkxNN
	Aw4eNl7VkfHWcGls2R39xAAA0QiTUqIkXsSoHFUsklGs460i8v/sRz8umNRObFe8RRpN
	fmnye3VtxUNeo1m6EzytjK09uEG0zSPXO70LFba0M/88BaYc/sUI8xUmfSDqVYf+YAe0
	+h36VyuYzuXKkA2abMoWT0nGlVTbLtO11DS7WzoAZClOSGQ5K26ckGvSPfXHwp4XQhhv
	Pi2w==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.42.77.4 with SMTP id g4mr15504206ick.17.1427052286365; Sun,
	22 Mar 2015 12:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAOFvGD7aLirsi6WLAgSLZinM4FUHVBYm+_KTUnj9KeLm_i_1Bw@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAOFvGD7aLirsi6WLAgSLZinM4FUHVBYm+_KTUnj9KeLm_i_1Bw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:24:46 -0400
Message-ID:	<CAPYb0EHy82EtBZRrLkdukDth14zhvGiFmEh7mnuvajCRpgC-aw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] A Python Gerber writer
From:	Bob Paddock <bob DOT paddock 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

>while toying around with the idea of creating a
> gerber writer in python. This is in order to facilitate the goal of
> creating multilayer PCBs with buried vias.

Great work.  Would be nice to end up with a true gerber editor in
addition to blind/buried vias.

Anyone know of a board house that doesn't up the price by %150 when using them?

For historical reference, I don't know if it is still in the patch
tracker now or not:

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Andrew Poelstra <asp11 AT sfu DOT ca> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 01:30:57AM -0400, Gus Fantanas wrote:

>> While following the discussion about layers, I wondered if the
>> capability to handle buried/blind vias could be implemented in gEDA.
>
> This would require core layer-handling changes.

The patch to add Blind/Buried vias has been suffering from Bit Rot on
Source Forge for years.
It was last rebased about a year ago:

[This link no longer works.  Is there an active archive of these old messages?]

http://www.seul.org/pipermail/geda-user/2010-July/047949.html

- Raw text -