On 11/09/10 07:59, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 14:16 -0400, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:31:48AM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
PS.. have you tried any of the GL stuff?
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~pcjc2/geda/trans_poly.png
Hi,
Is there any drawbacks running the GL renderer on system without hardware
openGL support?
Thanks,
Levente
--
Kovacs Levente leventel...@gmail.com
Voice: +36705071002
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 22:34 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:43:50 +0100
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
I've not seen PCB crash due to bad pstoedit polygons before though -
if you have an example which is reproducible, please send it to me.
I just re-tested and
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 10:45 +0200, Kovacs Levente wrote:
Hi,
Is there any drawbacks running the GL renderer on system without hardware
openGL support?
It would be slower than the non-GL version, due to the software
emulation of the graphics calls.
Your X11 driver might have had 2D
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:54 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
From pcjc2/src/borast/borast-bentley-ottmann.c, i used some functions
to make a small test program to see how bo_contour_to_traps() works.
The code is mostly stolen from cairo, then stripped down to a bare
minumum (e.g. doesn't deal with
Mike Bushroe wrote:
And when I select a line and try s, S,
CTRL-s, CTRL-S, l' L + +CTRL-+, nothing happens.
Don't select the line, pin, pad or text. Just let the mouse hover over
the object you want to increase and press [s] key. [CTRL-s] will decrease
the the size or line width. You can find
On 16/05/11 19:26, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:54 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
From pcjc2/src/borast/borast-bentley-ottmann.c, i used some functions
to make a small test program to see how bo_contour_to_traps() works.
The code is mostly stolen from cairo, then stripped
On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:17:34 +0100
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
It would be slower than the non-GL version, due to the software
emulation of the graphics calls.
Your X11 driver might have had 2D acceleration for the non-GL
version's rendering calls, for example. Even if the non-GL
On 16/05/11 19:26, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:54 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
From pcjc2/src/borast/borast-bentley-ottmann.c, i used some functions
to make a small test program to see how bo_contour_to_traps() works.
The code is mostly stolen from cairo, then stripped
When I load the attached footprint to the buffer, and I say Break
buffer elements to pieces PCB segfaults:
leva@nowhere:~/git/library/electronic/footprint$ gdb --args pcb
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.1-ubuntu
Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 22:59 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
On 16/05/11 19:26, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:54 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
From pcjc2/src/borast/borast-bentley-ottmann.c, i used some functions
to make a small test program to see how bo_contour_to_traps()
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 21:38 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote:
Hi,
I've looked in cairo before but never much got the hang of it
in detail.
Its complex code implementing some hard to understand algorithms!
One thing i'm eternally conflicted with is relying on video-card
hardware that is closed
I've always been interested in CAD programs and thought of making
a schematic/pcb one from scratch.
I've never truly understood why people would rewrite a (potentially)
huge application set just because. Why not start with the existing
tools and just rewrite the parts you're interested in?
On May 16, 2011, at 10:44 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
I've always been interested in CAD programs and thought of making
a schematic/pcb one from scratch.
I've never truly understood why people would rewrite a (potentially)
huge application set just because. Why not start with the existing
Why not start with the existing
tools and just rewrite the parts you're interested in?
License?
(and if you really want to get *that* involved in pcb layout tools,
there *are* parts of pcb that could stand to be ripped out and
replaced... ;)
Might interfere with someones script running
On May 14, 2011, at 11:08 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
To counter that.. I see no compelling reason to keep it though.
We'll need it more when we add layer types.
Real physical layers have material properties, thickness, and perhaps others.
They don't have types.
Given we'll probably end up
On Mon, 16 May 2011 15:48:29 +0200
Kovacs Levente leventel...@gmail.com wrote:
When I load the attached footprint to the buffer, and I say Break
buffer elements to pieces PCB segfaults:
Confirmed with git HEAD 39dd5f6cd91ec9032c6d2e3ca543e3f8f6cf0e4a
on amd64 (Ubuntu 11.04).
GDB and Valgrind
Why not start with the existing
tools and just rewrite the parts you're interested in?
License?
True. One of the benefits of the GPL is that people can bsae their
work off existing work, but not everyone wants to offer that benefit
to others.
I really don't feel bad for people who need
John Doty j...@noqsi.com writes:
Because when the theory is all epicycles and no physics, there's no
foundation upon which to stand.
Epicycles are no less physics than Keplers Laws. They described the
observed ephemerides of planets just fine (for the time). Kepler
replaced them by ellipses
Colin D Bennett wrote:
When I load the attached footprint to the buffer, and I say Break
buffer elements to pieces PCB segfaults:
Confirmed with git HEAD 39dd5f6cd91ec9032c6d2e3ca543e3f8f6cf0e4a
on amd64 (Ubuntu 11.04).
The footprint converts fine for Peters pcb+gl (dowloaded on
Peter Clifton wrote:
the two '=' or remove the whole part 'a={= Key=}', what will
remove this key-binding for this menu-item.
Yes, I can recommend removing this key binding.
I do in my local builds for the same reason, plus the fact that
sometimes the optimiser makes mistakes and
footprint converts fine for PCB fetched from GIT on 2011-03-29
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On May 16, 2011, at 10:21 AM, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote:
Why not start with the existing
tools and just rewrite the parts you're interested in?
License?
True. One of the benefits of the GPL is that people can bsae their
work off existing work, but not everyone wants to
Biggest determent to the open source is now GPLv3
OT here, since our stuff is still GPLv2
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 12:44 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
I've always been interested in CAD programs and thought of making
a schematic/pcb one from scratch.
I've never truly understood why people would rewrite a (potentially)
huge application set just because. Why not start with the existing
On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:10:30 +0200
Kai-Martin Knaak k...@lilalaser.de wrote:
Colin D Bennett wrote:
When I load the attached footprint to the buffer, and I say Break
buffer elements to pieces PCB segfaults:
Confirmed with git HEAD 39dd5f6cd91ec9032c6d2e3ca543e3f8f6cf0e4a
on amd64
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 20:52 +0200, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
John Doty j...@noqsi.com writes:
Because when the theory is all epicycles and no physics, there's no
foundation upon which to stand.
Epicycles are no less physics than Keplers Laws.
Epicycles really reminds me to gEDA.
Both
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:22 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:10:30 +0200
I bisected the bug and determined it was introduced 2011-04-30 by the
following commit:
git commit:
On Monday 16 May 2011, Steven Michalske wrote:
But lawyers can use that clause as a loophole to invalidate
legitimate patents.
Minor side effect of lawyers can use that clause as a loophole
to invalidate ILLegitimate patents ... which outnumber the
ligitimate ones a million to one.
On May 16, 2011, at 2:45 PM, DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote:
Biggest determent to the open source is now GPLv3
OT here, since our stuff is still GPLv2
Sorry for the OT bit, but v2 got a black eye from v3, commercially that is.
I know of two companies shying away from all
Steven Michalske wrote:
In a perfect world this would not be an issue. But lawyers can use that
clause as a loophole to invalidate legitimate patents.
The notion of software patents is by no means obvious. In fact, it is
subject to serous doubt. See the undulating tale of conflicting
Sorry for the OT bit, but v2 got a black eye from v3, commercially
that is. I know of two companies shying away from all gpl, because
of the or later clause in v2 and how you can apply v3 to it. Is
that still in our gpl v2 license?
That phrase does not allow the user to change the licence,
On Tue, 17 May 2011 00:10:07 +0100
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
I'll try and fix it shortly.
Peter,
Thank you.
Levente
--
Levente Kovacs
http://levente.logonex.eu
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
On May 16, 2011, at 4:25 PM, al davis ad...@freeelectron.net wrote:
On Monday 16 May 2011, Steven Michalske wrote:
But lawyers can use that clause as a loophole to invalidate
legitimate patents.
Minor side effect of lawyers can use that clause as a loophole
to invalidate ILLegitimate
On May 16, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak k...@lilalaser.de wrote:
Steven Michalske wrote:
In a perfect world this would not be an issue. But lawyers can use that
clause as a loophole to invalidate legitimate patents.
The notion of software patents is by no means obvious. In
hit send too soon
On May 16, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak k...@lilalaser.de wrote:
Steven Michalske wrote:
In a perfect world this would not be an issue. But lawyers can use that
clause as a loophole to invalidate legitimate patents.
The notion of software patents is by no
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 00:10 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 15:22 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:10:30 +0200
I bisected the bug and determined it was introduced 2011-04-30 by the
following commit:
...
I'll try and fix it shortly.
Now fixed -
On May 16, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
John Doty j...@noqsi.com writes:
Because when the theory is all epicycles and no physics, there's no
foundation upon which to stand.
Epicycles are no less physics than Keplers Laws. They described the
observed ephemerides of
38 matches
Mail list logo
