Hi again:
El 08/04/11 01:30, Peter Clifton escribió:
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 16:00 -0600, John Doty wrote:
On Apr 7, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Rubén Gómez Antolí wrote:
You are right but, what about the users?
I *am* a user.
I'm too.
gEDA is software that caters to the needs of users. But
it's no
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 16:00 -0600, John Doty wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Rubén Gómez Antolí wrote:
> >
> > You are right but, what about the users?
>
> I *am* a user. gEDA is software that caters to the needs of users. But
> it's not for passive *consumers* of software. There are plenty
2011/4/7 Rubén Gómez Antolí :
> Hi:
>
> El 06/04/11 16:42, John Doty escribió:
>>
>> On Apr 6, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/6/11 3:01 AM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
>
> Specifically, the suite misses a way for fast turnaround of schematic
> modification, simulation an
On Apr 7, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Rubén Gómez Antolí wrote:
> Hi:
>
> El 06/04/11 16:42, John Doty escribió:
>>
>> This is one place where gEDA's modular toolkit approach really shines. It
>> saves me an enormous amount of time relative to the more integrated tools I
>> once used. One really nice t
Hi:
El 06/04/11 16:42, John Doty escribió:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 4/6/11 3:01 AM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Specifically, the suite misses a way for fast turnaround of schematic
modification, simulation and display.
make
Exactly.
Especially for simulatio
Am 07.04.2011 21:35, schrieb Krzysztof Kościuszkiewicz:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 04:59:12PM +0200, Felix Ruoff wrote:
I have also done a feature request for this patch at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pcb/+bug/753643.
Hope, some of you like this feature, too and hope to get it accepted.
Pushed wi
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 04:59:12PM +0200, Felix Ruoff wrote:
> I have also done a feature request for this patch at
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/pcb/+bug/753643.
>
> Hope, some of you like this feature, too and hope to get it accepted.
Pushed with changed patch title (added gtk/hid). Thanks!
-
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 07:21:00PM +0200, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
> As soon as we have the option to define arbitary layer types, we also
> need to be able to define arbitrary DRC rules. The star-point may be a
> footprint with a structure on some non-conductive "shorts" layer, which
> will need
Out of curiosity, how do other PCB layout products (Altium, Orcad,
etc.) implement this? Follow by example?
On 7 April 2011 18:21, Stephan Boettcher
<[1]boettc...@physik.uni-kiel.de> wrote:
John Griessen <[2]j...@ecosensory.com> writes:
> On 04/07/2011 04:52 AM, Stephan Boettch
John Griessen writes:
> On 04/07/2011 04:52 AM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
>> PCB layer groups may be used here. Put the short on an extra layer, in
>> an extra group. At checkout time, you can assign the extra layer to the
>> group representing the copper layer that needs shorting. This is
>> p
rickman writes:
> I have to say I am philosophically opposed to any feature that allows
> a design to pass DRC when the layout differs from the schematic.
Just to get the terminology right:
DRC has no business to care about the schematics at all. There shall be
a tool to check if the layout
On 04/07/2011 04:52 AM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
PCB layer groups may be used here. Put the short on an extra layer, in
an extra group. At checkout time, you can assign the extra layer to the
group representing the copper layer that needs shorting. This is
probably a single char in the PCB fil
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Vincent <[1]vone...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Hello,
How the inherited attributes are entered in components? I couldn't
find
any information. I modified some preexisting component and then
entered
new name, footprint etc. If c
Hello,
I very like the feature Krzysztof introduced with his patch and would
like to have this feature in PCB, too.
The appended patch does exactly the same for pcb. The only modification
is, that the struct 'compselect' is called 'library_window' in pcb.
I have also done a feature request fo
On 4/7/2011 5:34 AM, Kovacs Levente wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:37:05 -0500
John Griessen wrote:
Yes, Levente's way of handling that after the fact is practical and
what I like to do, since then you keep all your DRC's working against
error, and have one more step to do after DRC complete.
Friends -
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:52:10PM +0200, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> DJ Delorie wrote:
> >> python. It only does SMD dual column footprints with an outline -
> >> and at the moment only takes mm.
> > Seems to be a popular thing to do. I did one a while ago, and mine
> > wasnt the first
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:10:02 +0200
Kai-Martin Knaak
wrote:
> This patch uses layer attributes to differentiate.
> IMHO, for the split ground use case an attribute of an object (track,
> or pad, or pin) would be more appropriate. Properties of objects can
> be attached to a footprint. So you can h
Kovacs Levente wrote:
> Yes. There is a patch which adds the ability to ignore DRC.
>
> http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Mar-2011/msg00096.html
This patch uses layer attributes to differentiate.
IMHO, for the split ground use case an attribute of an object (track, or
pad, or pin) would be more
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> python. It only does SMD dual column footprints with an outline -
>> and at the moment only takes mm.
>
> Seems to be a popular thing to do. I did one a while ago, and mine
> wasnt the first either...
How about inclusion of some of the more sophisticated scripts augmented
Vincent wrote:
> How the inherited attributes are entered in components? I couldn't find
> any information. I modified some preexisting component and then entered
> new name, footprint etc. If check the box of inherited attributes they
> show grayed but they are there. will they be disabled if th
John Griessen writes:
> On 04/06/2011 05:16 PM, Russell Dill wrote:
>> The use case I'm talking about, you have two nets, say GND and AGND1
>> which are two planes that are connected at a single point. Connecting
>> a component on the AGND1 side is different that connecting a component
>> on the
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:37:05 -0500
John Griessen wrote:
> Yes, Levente's way of handling that after the fact is practical and
> what I like to do, since then you keep all your DRC's working against
> error, and have one more step to do after DRC complete. Perhaps that
> method could be scripted
22 matches
Mail list logo
