I have built a private copy of libgeda implementing my search path: $system/gafrc $home/gafrc ./gafrc $system/gschemrc $home/gschemrc ./gschemrc
It works fine. The only problem is that I get a warning when it tries to find the "required system-gafrc" file: Did not find required system-gafrc file [/usr/local/geda/share/gEDA/system-gafrc] Did not find optional ~/.gEDA/gafrc file [/home/sdb/.gEDA/gafrc] Read local gafrc file [./gafrc] Read system-gschemrc file [/usr/local/geda/share/gEDA/system-gschemrc] Did not find optional ~/.gEDA/gschemrc file [/home/sdb/.gEDA/gschemrc] Did not find optional local gschemrc file [./gschemrc] However, differentiating between optional and required files can be handled in another way than what we do now. I like Peter's suggestion that the system-commonrc become the system-gafrc. This is a good first step on the road to migrating towards using gafrc everywhere & deprecating the old g[schem | netlist | attrib | symcheck]rc system. It does require some changes to the *rc.in files -- particularly in the symbols directory -- but that I don't mind doing. I don't think the old system should go away; that might cause breakage of legacy schematics. However, we can incorporate the new gafrc system while deprecating the old system for new designs. One question: If I make changes to libgeda, I would like to have folks test my stuff. Are there any volunteers out there who are willing to get stuff out of CVS, build it and test it when I post an update? Peter? In general, it would be a good thing to have a few beta testers who can verify that the code in CVS builds reliability. Stuart > > > Hi, > > thank you for including my request. > > I would prefer to read in the gafrc file before the individual rc file. That > gives you the chance to make changes for a single program after the common > setup is read. > Ales, what would be the advantage of reading the program rc before the gafrc? > > The order: system-wide, user-wide, local is the best. > > Having two system common rc files is certainly not what we want. Stuarts > proposal is very logical. The name gafrc is in all three cases the same. > Maybe renaming system-commonrc to system-gafrc would be a compromise. But I > don't know how much programming work this is .... > > Peter > >
