>> >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 07:19:30AM -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote: >> >> > 6. read /foo/bar/gafrc while sitting in the directory /foo/bar. This >> > takes care of all the guile search path problems, like when people >> put >> > things like (component-library "../common/symlib") or some such >> into >> > their RC files. >> > 7. After that, read the file itself.
If I may add my two bits.. I use currently about 4 different CAD packages at the moment and they all handle local "libraries" differently. Suffice it to say that local libraries are at best a bad choice for component management. If you wish to have an experimental component (a hack so-to-speak) use a global experimental library path. This eliminates the requirements for different local libraries for different projects. I'm presently doing a bit of work for a company that has about 33000 components on a "approved" library and about 5000 on the "experimental" library. By doing this they eliminate the problem for design data storage and retrieval as the next time the design is opened it may be in a different absolute path and therefore load up incorrectly. This also allows the designers to open up other "schematic pages" for design cut-and-paste and the components are available at all times. This is a problem for outsourcing designs however... This is where the difference between the various CAD packages really begins. In one the components are embedded in the design file. In another they can be copied to a local directory with a path relative to the design root. They all have their pros and cons WRT data management. Personally I like to have global absolutes (set up in some global RC file) and a "hard coded" relative path to the design root. I rarely "cut-and-paste" as designs are rarely that unique that you are not already not starting from a proven design in the first place. In which case the majority of the design is there and only a small bit has to be changed. YMMV but in my experience it works best this way for most cases... Mark
