X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.224.51.38
X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_66FB4FF3-E4FE-4BB3-ABDC-D0C067F402C8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Pin mapping (separate symbols from mappings)
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <20151019003814.f62620bf0fec77e65104c105@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:09:11 -0600
Message-Id: <BED51F9A-F6FF-4A23-B18B-C2EC8BB9DAB6@noqsi.com>
References: <20151018204010 DOT 9cce6a231dcc296256e187bd AT gmail DOT com> <201510181843 DOT t9IIhmWo025346 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20151018234424 DOT c0551dad9bef0859130239d9 AT gmail DOT com> <36B94694-F2AC-4A75-A8EB-40A1CE9A534C AT noqsi DOT com> <201510182225 DOT t9IMPkxK032763 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20151019003814 DOT f62620bf0fec77e65104c105 AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
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


--Apple-Mail=_66FB4FF3-E4FE-4BB3-ABDC-D0C067F402C8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii


On Oct 18, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Nicklas Karlsson =
(nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] =
<geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

>>> In my opinion, geda-gaf must remain neutral with respect to the
>>> specifics of the downstream flow.
>>=20
>> If we added a tool that sat between gschem and <downstream> that
>> "heavified" symbols, would that tool be part of geda-gaf and thus =
have
>> to be neutral about <downstream>, or would that tool not be, and thus
>> something geda-gaf would have to be neutral about?
>=20
> It depends on if there need to be feedback. I guess manufacturer part =
number do not need feed back. Revision number from for example =
subversion or other would however be useful. Pin numbers?
>=20

Feedback is perfectly reasonable if done in a tool-neutral way. For =
manual topology feedback from Osmond PCB, I have a script that compares =
the gnetlist output with the Osmond as-built netlist. If we defined a =
format for importing this data into geda-gaf, each downstream flow could =
provide such a script.

One geda-gaf issue is that the fundamental pin ID is refdes/pinnumber, =
confused a bit by slotting. That would be very hard to change, but I =
think mapping (original refdes)/(original pinnumber) to (as-built =
refdes)/(as-built pinnumber) is possible.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com



--Apple-Mail=_66FB4FF3-E4FE-4BB3-ABDC-D0C067F402C8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=pAeq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_66FB4FF3-E4FE-4BB3-ABDC-D0C067F402C8--