X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-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 :cc:content-type; bh=rVf2YaDHfdUJrz36YCG4nx86NPmYPIRxwrIttZo8g8A=; b=wZk5nvGpX5ZKHDQ/7XzALAYOUWM4/d3+l2Il5Wu2mJ/UQQkJ/P7G/rlr8ZJUdj2XKp iyzlOGgKqgj9vdBtBK6jFXRmqnxj3BK/UOnB9XFFIJLhEL3sLvGliPY7/hEUBhB4m9RJ Uwp6wO95/zgIGTiBugc5aZQeBVcHSY4v2vC5blsEaodH09C2UFYeBr3nqVPIPQGnTgVG BaoTUV72imEIMicCvLJO+Tmg8wBgh2DYe0ObIiqmvZI395r9wi9hjIOp2P49MtXCmcO9 zm/U4HjnWkb50jdSXV2xn5kd7ag86Oh3vEE8ryoStJuN+ipSF1qU+u0PE21rI5suP2oJ t1qw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.221.193 with SMTP id qg1mr6238889pac.134.1433947753784; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:49:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150608222056 DOT 10601 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:49:13 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Any news about FOSS EDA coordination? Import/export, common file format From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Cc: "foss-pcb AT ohwr DOT org" , "kicad-users AT yahoogroups DOT com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 Precedence: bulk One unified interchange format is an approach we could take. If we go that route though would it not make more sense to adopt one of the already existent formats so we can do more than just talk among the other FOSS licensed EDA packages. We get a lot of people who consider adoption of gEDA and then drop it when they find that migration of old artwork takes massive manual labour. There is another one. We each move the file handling code into libraries and change each suite to support each others libraries. That way gschem could edit schematics in kicad's format and vice versa. I favour this approach because it means both groups can continue to evolve their formats as they choose. I don't mean to be critical of the gEDA project but alterations to formats take a while to get ratified. With two or more EDA projects trying to arrive at a consensus that decision time will explode. -Evan On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, timofonic timofonic (timofonic AT gmail DOT com) wrote: > Something similar to OpenDocument but for electronics. A collection of > different file formats with a common container and technologies, reusing > available ones if possible and take the best common denominator of all them. > > And of course, ISO and ECMA approved. Not sure about OASIS, maybe it's too > out of their targets. > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) > wrote: >> >> See http://edacore.org/ but there are no news. >> >> timofonic timofonic (timofonic AT gmail DOT com) wrote: >> > About FOSS EDA coordination? >> >> Ouabache Designworks (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) wrote: >> > Should we start a converstation on what is needed and why? >> >> Let me know your username once you've created an account on >> edacore.org, then I'll grant anyone who wants to contribute >> write permission. Unfortunately manual moderation is the only >> scalable method to keep spam out. :\ >> >> >> //Peter > > -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/