X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:37:15 +0100 (CET)
From: Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gnetlist chaos
In-Reply-To: <20170212102807.GB30751@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1702121203520.2781@nimbus>
References: <D0E30DB4-3ADF-415C-A95E-B58F09AE054D AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702111609100 DOT 25113 AT nimbus> <CAJXU7q_ogjTmEOjruGJ3od-GYdv_gef0X_yc7Fne1q6kDu1xrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20170212090109 DOT GA450 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702121039420 DOT 2050 AT nimbus>
 <20170212102807 DOT GB30751 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via 
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> you want to put "legacy gnetlist" developers and users into a ghetto 
> preventing its developement and calling it "obsolete"

Why are you clinging to the old version of the code?  What you are trying 
to do is much easier with the cleaned-up version.

> What were incompatible changes you're complaining about?

For example adding a second, conflicting entry point for the netlister. 
If your goal is actually, as you claim, to make the netlisting 
functionality available from Scheme, you could add a binding for a simple 
function which constructs a Netlist object and assigns it to the_netlist.

> To make things clearer. I have a vision and continue the work started by 
> Peter Brett to introduce new configuration system.

I'm not a fan of the way this configuration system is currently 
implemented because it makes things more complicated without really 
solving the problem, but I won't stop you from working on it.

> Next step would be to modularize gnetlist and gsymcheck and make their 
> code usable in gschem.

This is exactly what I did for gnetlist.  Why are you trying to undermine 
my work instead of building on it?

> The most easy way as I see it is rewriting two these program as Scheme 
> modules and I've already did it with gsymcheck and published the branch 
> on github a year ago.

I don't think rewriting gnetlist is a good idea.  If I learned one thing 
from cleaning up the code, it's that I wouldn't ever have got it right if 
I had tried to rewrite the code from scratch.

However, if your goal is to have a Scheme version of gnetlist, there is a 
relatively easy way to do that: just take my cleaned-up code and translate 
it to Scheme.  This should be easier than translating the C code to 
Scheme, and the resulting code would be much more maintainable.

> You don't want for some reason have programs to be separate while some 
> users asking them to be so.

Why would I want to have this?  I've gone to great lengths to improve 
gEDA.  If my intention had been to have my own project, it could have had 
the same result in less than 20% of the time because I wouldn't have had 
to bother about preserving the exact ways gEDA/gaf works.


> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:39:48AM +0100, Roland Lutz wrote:
>> Yes, because it's the obsolete version of the netlister.  There should 
>> not be any reason why you would need to use it; it's just sitting there 
>> so people can switch back if they feel better about it.
>
> It's just your vision.

It's fact.


>>> I tried xorn several times but it broke my work with REPL and 
>>> rc-configuration (you know I use several scripts in Scheme, some of 
>>> which have been published on github).
>>
>> This should not have happened.  Which are the scripts which don't work 
>> for you any more with the cleaned-up code?
>
> I tried to enable your code in October. Looking at the repo history I 
> don't think you've cleaned up something since then.

Then the issue should still be reproducable.

> And I have no motivation to look at it any more.

If you don't provide me with the information required to fix it, you 
shouldn't complain if something doesn't work.