X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From:	paubert AT iram DOT es
Date:	Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:39:11 +0200
From:	Gabriel Paubert <paubert AT iram DOT es>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] [RFC] Major changes to symbol/schematic libraries
	in geda-gaf
Message-ID:	<20130909083911.GB22949@visitor2.iram.es>
References:	<87ob83dodl DOT fsf AT harrington DOT peter-b DOT co DOT uk>
	<CAMvDHVDprzA9P2NBw-J0p=HRbs10-GkyOX+Ob+dMhseorf4QKg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CAMvDHVDprzA9P2NBw-J0p=HRbs10-GkyOX+Ob+dMhseorf4QKg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spamina-Bogosity:	Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score:	-1.0 (-)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report:	Content analysis details: (-1.0 points)
	pts rule name description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
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 Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 11:31:29AM +0400, Vladimir Zhbanov wrote:
> 1.  I'd prefer to use shorter default directory names without
>     special characters such as dash, e.g. just 'geda' or 'gaf', in
>     order to facilitate scripting.
> 
> 2.  Honestly, I don't understand why a project directory should
>     screen the user or system directory with the same name. I'd
>     prefer to see them mixed in gschem with project directory
>     symbols hiding user or system ones having the same names.
>     To distinguish project, user and system symbols, they could be
>     graphically separated, say, having icons with different
>     colors. I like the workflow when I have locally modified
>     versions of my user library symbols in a project directory.

>     I'd even prefer to somehow force gschem make local copies of
>     new symbols every time I add them in a schematic, and further
>     work with these copies (it also would make any project
>     independent of any library changes). 

That would be my preferred way too. In this case, the whole project
becomes completely independent of what is in the libraries when 
you update the system. Or when you switch machines (which I do
all the time with 3 different workplaces).

Self-contained projects are really a good thing, at least when
I used OrCad, there was a command "Archive parts in schematics"
which took all the parts used in the schematics and put them
in a single library file. That was a very nice feature, actually
the one I mostly miss.

I have no strong opinion in the "symbol library file with multiple parts"
versus "symbol file with a single part". Both can be made to work
reasonably well IMO. And actually gschem kind of supports the library
concept when embedding symbols in schematics.

	Gabriel

- Raw text -