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=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=vegZYTa+OKt1btpcAew6NmhLWAOEhOJr/vI0PV2wD58=;
	b=qEHN3sI5lSpspF8x/18j2gSYIK4N8Xw+A1ujRj0nb1rtkNC6SwBjx2TvRbyO8s1ghY
	CgaElxIMM8x/2So5L3HbAy8t+3ASw4EJqAa6M74gEQiyvpveRLJ/IVHRbIPbKeThgpGR
	tNCdw/t80u8PgAg0Wfo/qLaPBqhBMYtILWrcnCmcuzlUyLPXNFMq/qx98A4qK7ANJ4h/
	jLog09dYn9Iw2Jkc80VDcBGTyPGg8/fK85QMZh6eakGMvmABtp0NNaXl3xZsx6+yp0K5
	Y3MkDqQ1bGFR/s+T9wzR3FkN9opz6pne6fH7IdVlMREfhWBwnrEkhtP0aQfkq4u+OXIg
	3s8A==
X-Received:	by 10.180.105.234 with SMTP id gp10mr15772494wib.51.1445207898839;
	Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:38:14 +0200
From:	"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Pin mapping (separate symbols from mappings)
Message-Id:	<20151019003814.f62620bf0fec77e65104c105@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:	<201510182225.t9IMPkxK032763@envy.delorie.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>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
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

> > In my opinion, geda-gaf must remain neutral with respect to the
> > specifics of the downstream flow.
> 
> 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?

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?

- Raw text -