X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=OAu8x3LS83UM64dfQm1dc/S28Ha3IMmFqB/7BRlfELE=;
	b=YE+fB8lRqVFLJlrE/vzrk4jIZ1rNYliyNy9B7rpuQHQsllBSrehwNpEwuQeDUNCYkW
	Dn7Tmv3Iwb4+Ao2H5k+ER0kk8HczHVsqzkXz/VZ85BFz30f+YVS0pr7RmF6l3hpScwTD
	VZiJ2fW99CCYoDEEfoVZcNvxVI1WfWfntG2egk3op6QmHv2S4iNEjKbjIUH4uQJkf5MH
	injeakKXT8TwA/wkfu2qmf5jSIc9mq+R97WTKktle9fING/yxrpbRemGLtA95GJ9zA8t
	ACUiqZe7uM3oFy4OH3OYewJlclKzCMOVh5rW//LL7EzgO9RFk1s8IaJRk9lc9AjrthoP
	DOyw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.180.89.231 with SMTP id br7mr6730579wib.19.1375707034354;
	Mon, 05 Aug 2013 05:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:50:34 -0400
Message-ID:	<CACPio-6n3+9SPJGzMXKPPLGSwgK=tvRZ1kfXB-LqWV30Z3P2oA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	[geda-user] Gschem actions
From:	Nathan Stewart <therealnathanstewart AT gmail DOT com>
To:	"geda-user AT delorie DOT com" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

--e89a8f3ba2551908d804e332c11c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

After some mulling about, I think I came up with a handy way to keep my
hierarchical schems together with their simulation schematics. Make the
circuit for a simulation a sub-circuit, and make THAT component graphical.
That should keep it out of the netlister for the actual board, without
breaking the netlister when run on the sim circuit.

I've also stopped using pins on subcircuit components unless I want to
clearly illustrate something. In my project, for instance, I have the
following boards. 1) PS Controller / Monitoring, 2) front panel (actually
two boards because it's longer than 200mm), 3) preamp, and 4) power amp.

I use pins on the components that represent connections between controller,
preamp, and power amp. I don't for just about everything else. This lets me
1) avoid creating new symbols for everything, and 2) declutters. My basic
rule is anything you would explicitly draw a line for in a single page
schematic gets a pin. If you would use a label, it doesn't need a pin.

So now that I have my simulation circuits handy, lurking under graphical
symbols - I want to add an action to run it. Before I go reinventing wheels
- does this capability already exist? I see spice blocks for includes,
models, but I want a spice file block that will run the netlister on the
current page, run ngspice then run a spice batch file on that.

So:
1) Does this capability exist already?
2) Does it offend anyone's [who has commit access] sensibility?
3) Security - I'm not used to thinking in terms of paranoia, but it occurs
to me that:

* anytime you give people the ability to execute something from something
that people think of in terms of 'data', you introduce security issues.

* I suspect something like 99.99% of gschem projects are viewed only by
their creator - so it might not matter.

* The security can might be kicked down the road to ngspice by allowing
only execution of the netlister, and running spice commands on the netlist.
Thus - no NEW security risks are introduced.

4) In the interest of that last bullet - does anyone use spice other than
ngspice with gschem?

RFC

--e89a8f3ba2551908d804e332c11c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>After some mulling abou=
t, I think I came up with a handy way to keep my hierarchical schems togeth=
er with their simulation schematics. Make the circuit for a simulation a su=
b-circuit, and make THAT component graphical. That should keep it out of th=
e netlister for the actual board, without breaking the netlister when run o=
n the sim circuit.<br>
<br></div>I&#39;ve also stopped using pins on subcircuit components unless =
I want to clearly illustrate something. In my project, for instance, I have=
 the following boards. 1) PS Controller / Monitoring, 2) front panel (actua=
lly two boards because it&#39;s longer than 200mm), 3) preamp, and 4) power=
 amp. <br>
<br></div>I use pins on the components that represent connections between c=
ontroller, preamp, and power amp. I don&#39;t for just about everything els=
e. This lets me 1) avoid creating new symbols for everything, and 2) declut=
ters. My basic rule is anything you would explicitly draw a line for in a s=
ingle page schematic gets a pin. If you would use a label, it doesn&#39;t n=
eed a pin. <br>
<br></div>So now that I have my simulation circuits handy, lurking under gr=
aphical symbols - I want to add an action to run it. Before I go reinventin=
g wheels - does this capability already exist? I see spice blocks for inclu=
des, models, but I want a spice file block that will run the netlister on t=
he current page, run ngspice then run a spice batch file on that. <br>
<br>So:<br></div>1) Does this capability exist already? <br>2) Does it offe=
nd anyone&#39;s [who has commit access] sensibility?=A0 <br>3) Security - I=
&#39;m not used to thinking in terms of paranoia, but it occurs to me that:=
<br>
<br>* anytime you give people the ability to execute something from somethi=
ng that people think of in terms of &#39;data&#39;, you introduce security =
issues.<br><br></div>* I suspect something like 99.99% of gschem projects a=
re viewed only by their creator - so it might not matter.<br>
<br></div>* The security can might be kicked down the road to ngspice by al=
lowing only execution of the netlister, and running spice commands on the n=
etlist. Thus - no NEW security risks are introduced. <br><br></div><div>
4) In the interest of that last bullet - does anyone use spice other than n=
gspice with gschem? <br><br></div><div>RFC<br></div><div><br><br></div></di=
v>

--e89a8f3ba2551908d804e332c11c--

- Raw text -