X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:54:12 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender:	igor2 AT igor2priv
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug:	to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From:	gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Re: Project file
In-Reply-To:	<alpine.DEB.2.20.1807251512100.2062@nimbus>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1807251649060.8169@igor2priv>
References:	<CAGqyy=bsRdbA8r8q1MTX7pG9ASZiqpsw1-kbj=geTwLoWaz1sA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20180723152807 DOT 13d27cadcd023b63aa3fd9c0 AT gmail DOT com> <CAGqyy=ZC68vU+8vpM4oai5=Mrfq_=QpyojzDwwW-50EV6P4q3A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807231832560 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv>
	<20180723174658 DOT 32979841DEBA AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807232013250 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv> <20180723195942 DOT 605CB841DEBA AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807240343390 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv> <20180724132731 DOT 76074841DEBC AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<20180724161712 DOT f0082dda1044e41179fa82f0 AT gmail DOT com> <20180724145644 DOT 122BA841DEC5 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <FA1472EC-713E-4A14-A881-6404E527998C AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1807241828540 DOT 8169 AT igor2priv> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 20 DOT 1807251512100 DOT 2062 AT nimbus>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
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

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Roland Lutz wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, John Doty wrote:
>>> The general-purpose tool for handling this kind of thing is ?make?.
>> 
>> (Cool, we are back here! I so much expected this...)
>> 
>> I did list the reasons why 'make' doesn't fully solve the problem, thanks 
>> for reading that part.
>> 
>> Anyway this feature is not for you. We all know you hate the project file 
>> idea. Fortunately nobody proposed anything that'd force you to use it.
>
>
> I think the fact that John's use case is much more complex than what you are 
> currently modelling for is *exactly* why you two should be talking to each 
> other.  A project file concept that can handle this kind of project (and 
> handle it well, not just by adding a bunch of exceptions) is much more likely 
> to be adopted by gEDA/gaf.

Good, thanks.

My original message was: "we have a project file already 
implemented, it seems Luis has a problem where it could help, and if 
gschem wants to join, I can support". For this your above answer
translates to a "won't join".

Case closed from my side, have a nice day!

Regards,

Igor2

- Raw text -