On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:40 PM, John Doty <[1]j...@noqsi.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 2011, at 4:05 PM, John Hudak wrote:
So, this causes me to ask the question: Why hasen't gattrib been
removed from:[3][2]http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gaf ???? as
well as
any
other instances?
Perhaps because some of us use it.
While the concept is good, the implementation is worthless, and
apparently has been 'around' with the same sort of problems since
2006.
It's useful for "touch up" of a few attributes, but not for the
broad
changes you want. The spreadsheet approach really doesn't scale
well
anyway. If you have 300 bypass capacitors in a project, it's much
more
efficient to have a "heavy" project-specific bypass capacitor
symbol
with all of the necessary attributes inside it. Then, to change
your
bypass capacitor selection, you need only edit that one symbol
rather
than 300 instances.
Unfortunately, gattrib is an orphan: its developer is no longer
active
on the gEDA project. So, although it remains useful within its
limits,
nobody is fixing its bugs. Do you wish to volunteer?
As a person who is trying to give the gEDA approach a try,
frustrations mount daily in trying to make progress.
There is no gEDA approach. There are many gEDA approaches. gEDA is
a
toolkit, not an integrated tool. If you expect it to lead you down
some
specific usage pathway you will be disappointed. Part of the game
is
adapting it to the flow your job needs. Its power is that you
*can*
adapt it to *your* needs: you aren't stuck with an approach
that doesn't fit those needs.
This brings up another issue that I am curious about....the one of
component symbol libraries.
My expectation (hope, guess?) was with an effort that is open
source,
users would contribute their symbols to the library,
User-contributed symbols are available at [3]gedasymbols.org.
and the symbol
library would be huge. I didn't find that reality. I assumed
this
because users would 'giveback' to the community. Clearly some
have
done this. I plan on doing this (if I continue down this path).
So
why
hasen't the component mfgs been inclined to develop and contribute
symbols? Why hasen't the users contributed more?
I think it's partly because symbols are often specialized to a
particular project or approach.
Perhaps there are
not too many users. Perhaps it is a case of: The tools have been
built
but the users are not comming. Anyway, just curious....
Well, if you go to my area at [4]gedasymbols.org, you'll find
symbols for
VLSI design and symbolic circuit analysis. Those won't work for
pcb.
But they're useful for their intended purposes.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
[5]http://www.noqsi.com/
[6]j...@noqsi.com
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
[7]geda-user@moria.seul.org
[8]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
"There is no gEDA approach. There are many gEDA approaches. gEDA is a
toolkit, not an integrated tool. If you expect it to lead you down
some
specific usage pathway you will be disappointed. Part of the game is
adapting it to the flow your job needs. Its power is that you *can*
adapt it to *your* needs: you aren't stuck with an approach
that doesn't fit those needs."
With all due respect, I have read/heard this philosophy a number of
times. I don't expect and never have expected to be lead anywhere. If
one reads the [9]http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gaf website, there is a
clear impression that these tools can work together in some fashion.
That fashion is dictated by what ever the users end goal is. This
strongly implies a lot of 'flexibility', which means that the tools
have been tested for interopeability. There is, however, a very clear
statement about one tool using another tools output, performing some
function, and perhaps generating output that can be used by the
upstream tool or downstream tool. If this funtionality does not work,
and even go so far as to corrupt either the input file or the resultant
output file, then, quite simply, the tool is worthless. (Which makes
me wonder why anyone would use a flakey tool to do anything to
something they have spent so much time developing at the risk of having
it broken/destroyed).
As far a spreadsheet approach scaling well, I also beg to differ. A
simple global substitute on a unique string will fix the probem. Even a
global search with selective substitution will be more efficient than a
tool that will not allow one to accomplish the task. With the power of
the scripting language/macro language in a well known commercial
spreadsheet, one can do just about anything. Now if your spreadsheet
tool is brain-damaged, then one is screwed. Thankfully there are some
good spreadsheet programs around.
-John
References
1. mailto:j...@noqsi.com
2. http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gaf
3. http://gedasymbols.org/
4. http://gedasymbols.org/
5. http://www.noqsi.com/
6. mailto:j...@noqsi.com
7. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org
8. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
9. http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:gaf
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
