Mail Archives: geda-user/2017/07/20/23:33:12
(answering only because I've been addressed)
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, John Doty wrote:
>
>@Igor2: a PCB program with a real physical model of the board interests me
>more. Go for that, as I think you?re doing.
pcb-rnd already has a rather good physical model of the board after the
layer rewrite. At least good enough for me and most of our actual users. A
few smaller parts are still missing, but it seems the user demand behind
those are very low. Nevertheless, they will happen sooner or later, in
parallel to cschem development.
I know you are happy with lepton. I am not. Some other users are not. We
have started cschem. As Bert said: it's been decided, and it is going to
happen. You can not stop it by pushing your "lepton is the only real
choice and we don't need anything else" agenda. There is only one way to
stop it: if you quickly change lepton to do _all_ that's listed in
cschem's manifesto.
Anyway that's probably not going to happen, so you'll need to live with
the idea that cschem is going to exist. However...
You are not affected. Cschem will not shut down lepton or github. Cschem
will not be a virus that infects your machine and convert or delete your
.sch files. Cschem is not a ransomware that encrypts all your precious
scheme scripts by converting them to awk. You don't need to fear it.
Since you are making suggestions as of what I should do, I will make one
about what you should do, even if I know you will ignore it. It goes
like this:
Either try to be constructive about it or just stay out of it.
Repeating over and over that you don't need it will not make any change
about the course of events about lepton or cschem. Not even if you extend
the wording and trying to talk in the name of other users.
> Lepton will be able to feed it.
Does it already have support for the back annotation, back from 2015? The
tEDAx netlist format? Have _you_ ever made a board using pcb-rnd and sent
it to a fab?
I suspect the answer is no to all 3. Which means in your "I do not touch
pcb layout ever" world lepton is the ideal tool to feed pcb-rnd. In
reality, geda/gaf/gschem is ahead on supporting pcb-rnd - that's why
genxproj can build on gschem but can't rely on lepton. If anyone asks, I
will recommend them to prefer geda/gaf over lepton mainly for these
practical reasons.
If you want lepton to be able to compete with geda/gaf/gschem on this,
you'll need to write some code. I believe the back annotation part can not
be solved from a backend, mostly due to a design choice I am usually
referring to as "flaws" and going to do differently in cschem.
This does not mean I think lepton is dead. But I want to be clear about
something: from pcb-rnd's point of view, from gexproj's point of view, and
generally from the point of view of whole family of these new tools:
lepton is already much less capable than geda/gaf. And unlike geda/gaf
lepton doesn't show any sign of trying to cooperate. Just saying things
like "we don't need anything else" or that "lepton will be able to feed
it" while it's a few features behind geda/gaf won't help this.
I do understand that one way getting this "fixed" is to kill off the
cooperation and progress on geda/gaf and/or cschem by trying to demotivate
anyone who is not rolling lepton. But at least in case of cschem it just
won't work. In pcb-rnd we managed to build a new, active and
_constructive_ community It mostly lives on IRC with more daily traffic
than geda-user@'s weekly traffic these days. I plan to attempt to do the
same with cschem. That's why I took it off this list as soon as I could -
to leave behind the demotivators.
Now you need to understand that the other way of getting this fixed is to
follow geda/gaf and implement the missing feature (maybe even consider
changing a thing or two in the basic design, things that I believe are
just flaws). tEDAx should really be a 20 minutes backend task, so I am
talking about the back annotation here.
I remember you last time said that this problem doesn't need to be solved
- and I agree with a small addition: it doesn't need to be solved for
_you_, in lepton. Fortunately we have geda/gaf and we will have cschem, so
at least the rest of the world, users who do want this problem to be
solved, already have it via geda/gaf and will have it via cschem. Whether
you like that or not.
Regards,
Igor2
- Raw text -