Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/10/29/02:40:39
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 05:09:55PM -0600, John Doty wrote:
> >> I suggest that those who propose a change to gEDA consider whether the change
> >> would be beneficial if pcb did not exist. If not, then the change is probably
> >> not a good idea.
> >
> > Once again, you're speaking too broadly. What do you mean by "gEDA"?
> > Because, the above does not make sense until you start talking about the file
> > format, libgeda, gschem, gnetlist, architecture, OBJECTs, TOPLEVELs etc.
> >
>
> The two projects have completely separate source trees and versioning. By
> gEDA I mean the contents of the "gEDA/gaf" tree. By pcb, I mean the contents
> of the "PCB" tree.
That is still way too broad. The gEDA source tree contains everything: libgeda,
gschem, gattrib, gnetlist, a huge pile of symbols, scripts and utilities.
Sorry, until you start talking about specific components and explain why a
proposed plan is a bad idea and how badly it affects those components, it is
impossible for me to take you seriously.
--
Ivan Stankovic, pokemon AT fly DOT srk DOT fer DOT hr
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
- Raw text -