On Saturday 29 March 2008 20:18:47 al davis wrote: > On Saturday 29 March 2008 14:41, Newell Jensen wrote: > > Just curious, but how many people use xgsch2pcb presently? I am > > interested in hearing your reasons for either using it or not using > > it. > > Just adding a graphic wrapper around one tool doesn't give me anything. > By adding a few buttons to push, usually in a routine, it makes the > interface worse. This is what I mean by "kick me". I need to kick it > to keep it going. > > A project manager needs to take care of that automatically, without > being kicked. I want to have a schematic, layout, and simulation, > smoothly without explicitly asking for every step of the conversion. > It's fine if there are several tools under the hood, but the user > should not need to kick it for every step and every choice. >
You clearly haven't used xgsch2pcb, have you?
With a Makefile, in order to update your PCB, you have to:
- Save in gschem
- Switch to PCB
- Save in PCB
- Switch to a terminal
- Run make
- Switch to PCB
- Revert to saved in PCB
- Load new components to buffer
- Place new component buffer
- Execute command file
With xgsch2pcb, in order to update your PCB, you have to:
- Save in gschem
- Switch to xgsch2pcb
- xgsch2pcb will detect the change and ask you if you want to update your PCB,
so click "Update"
- Switch to PCB
In my experience, xgsch2pcb has significant *advantages* in terms of "kick
me".
Just my £0.02.
Peter
--
Peter Brett
Electronic Systems Engineer
Integral Informatics Ltd
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
