On Dec 20, 2007, at 1:06 PM, John Griessen wrote: > Stuart Brorson wrote: >> I am completely, utterly, and deadly opposed to a database, except as >> an optional plug-in -- i.e. a separate facility which the >> remainder of >> gEDA can run without. If gEDA requires a database for use, then we >> lose 99% of all gEDA users. A database is a PITA to install, build, >> maintain, administer, upgrade, and use. It is also a dependency >> which >> will make gEDA uninstallable by almost everybody. > > You have a point there...keeping it optional is probably how it > will evolve then... > Everything I've said at first is wrong. > > DJ's simplified query language for electronic parts could run on a > remote server that is installed > by someone who can stand adminning it. But then, it would need to > be editable like a wiki > so new info could be added, or maybe that's what some of the > suggestions about merging data are about. > > The model could be, those who can, create db servers of parts and > update them as they see fit, > for their interests, with no trashing caused by wiki editor > hackers. The simplified query language > plus a list of server URLs let's a merge of data happen across some > computer dirs on one machine, > or across company machines, or across the Atlantic Ocean, etc.
I'm failing to visualize this. Right now, the source files for the BOM are schematics and symbols. I have proposed adding another file for attributes by part. What are the makefile dependencies of a BOM in this database scheme? In other words, what's the information flow? > > John Griessen > > -- > Ecosensory Austin TX > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
