X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Re: Project file
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<CAGqyy=bsRdbA8r8q1MTX7pG9ASZiqpsw1-kbj=geTwLoWaz1sA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20180723152807 DOT 13d27cadcd023b63aa3fd9c0 AT gmail DOT com>
	<CAGqyy=ZC68vU+8vpM4oai5=Mrfq_=QpyojzDwwW-50EV6P4q3A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807231832560 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv>
	<20180723174658 DOT 32979841DEBA AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807232013250 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv>
	<20180723195942 DOT 605CB841DEBA AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807240343390 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv>
	<20180724132731 DOT 76074841DEBC AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<20180724161712 DOT f0082dda1044e41179fa82f0 AT gmail DOT com>
	<20180724145644 DOT 122BA841DEC5 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<FA1472EC-713E-4A14-A881-6404E527998C AT noqsi DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807241828540 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 20 DOT 1807251512100 DOT 2062 AT nimbus>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807251649060 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv>
From:	"John Griessen (john AT ecosensory DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<e0cdb558-74c4-4960-d7b7-091e073c3df4@ecosensory.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2018 10:38:27 -0500
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1807251649060.8169@igor2priv>
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, 25 Jul 2018, Roland Lutz wrote:
> I think the fact that John's use case is much more complex than what you are currently modelling for is *exactly* why you two 
> should be talking to each other.

"Case is much more complex" doesn't sound like a match to me.  Why would they work together when goals are not aligned,
and they have long differences of style?

It's too bad you don't see cooperating with pcb-rnd used along with gschem.  Maybe lepton is a way to go until
cschem, but I've not had much response when I ask lepton questions.

Meanwhile, I use gschem of the same version, gschem 1.9.2 (g53ec833), as several years ago and hear
hints there is new development of a few bug fixes, but cannot find how to access these new versions of gschem.
gschem 1.9.2 (g53ec833) regularly segfaults.

- Raw text -