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:	<CAPDh1TqwQOtyh0jQjEMzF-pg6wzXVJ2rSCZEHh7-xvUqNWRdLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAOP4iL2RenFM9yxVhc_fkmPmzBa9iXRFH2uUvfEuGC_qMY17Jw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAPDh1To9cjhR-zJpsJCL68cWiSTMQDJ-jvnrGLwR_-qp6+r+Tg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20150608222056 DOT 10601 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<CAPDh1TqwQOtyh0jQjEMzF-pg6wzXVJ2rSCZEHh7-xvUqNWRdLQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:49:13 -0400
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhSaDCs26RSY2bGdhqfr5Xz1MjF_h-CCM+4zOs-vZ5Fg9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Any news about FOSS EDA coordination? Import/export,
	common file format
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	"foss-pcb AT ohwr DOT org" <foss-pcb AT ohwr DOT org>,
	"kicad-users AT yahoogroups DOT com" <kicad-users AT yahoogroups DOT com>
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

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) <geda-user AT delorie 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)
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> 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/

- Raw text -