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=L8bFyCEtxK5bC3LHpg/UmlXZ9SeQe8egfP7M5LS3ncY=; b=cMcgx5ZWO9hvNVxnz/J/+WsiDcZdlVtSgvfzAAekopsT/2aNrYHSpOhBID76Ho4Dhx AwO7+vL/egVOxp2r4Cduvggk0XD9hpTqPOZalv86UmLeGDCLRmwc8yZD1kjUGlYnqboY DXtkVEBMUrtdPfqhIXrsVBFxIQDtjzzGloUwglydO9eexmeBYrAny8OlK/AaubmgdwuU UB8F6mKqXlvtXGH7aAiR9+xXbtz0RVl6jcAzFFi2hTAOP2uCjGxBiX3pP6ZHVVo5Jf61 j3S+3A9XkfTFPkQmtSIvwOTvHmYTJ+RLeaAdc8xNY/rP6/x7Pgj8uhpv7eeY9zoHEhvQ Mzrw== X-Received: by 10.180.10.8 with SMTP id e8mr7757612wib.22.1442076784459; Sat, 12 Sep 2015 09:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:53:02 +0200 From: "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] About reinventing the wheel, and how to avoid it Message-Id: <20150912185302.18b30c02caf5e385b96184b8@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150912142006.GA16820@localhost.localdomain> References: <201509112020 DOT t8BKKBgI012564 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201509112058 DOT t8BKwF3b013774 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <6341DF3E-543D-4E36-9B01-6B5B950208C4 AT noqsi DOT com> <20150911230843 DOT GE7946 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20150912021841 DOT 52f57f2d AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <55F3F5F2 DOT 406 AT jump-ing DOT de> <20150912142006 DOT GA16820 AT localhost DOT localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Precedence: bulk > Actually, looking at these discussions over several years I think this > proposition is robust. IMO, we could make more proper relations between > gschem/gnetlist/gaf and pcb using > 1. either more serious integration (like KiCAD); > 2. or more serious separation, defining more robust interfaces > gschem/gnetlist/gaf or pcb would need to exchange necessary data > between the programs (so the mailing list separation would be useful, > too) 2. pcb2pdf, pcb2gerber, pcb2eps, ... may be better than a integrated solution because it may for example work with a Makefile but I can't put any really good arguments for it right now.