Criminy... I have to admit, I couldn't even get the (1.5) source to compile in Linux Kubuntu recently... so if people are saying it's easy for those "not in the know" to work on gEDA source code, they're just delusional. Of course, I am now going to try to use git and compile that way since I was NEVER able to get the source on the release web page to compile -- hoping those instructions are slightly clearer. Kurt > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 14:16:49 -0600 > From: John Doty <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: gEDA-user: fritzing-like gEDA? gEDA-like Fritzing? > Fritzing-interface-to-gEDA? > To: gEDA user mailing list <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > On May 9, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Chris Smith wrote: > > > John Doty wrote: > >> > >> There are lots of GUI languages. But the critical thing is defining > >> the project. For that, there's only one candidate: "make". There's > >> nothing else that can deal with the declarations, rules, and > >> procedures needed to put together a project using heterogeneous > >> tools. > > > > Make was an excellent system in its day, but is now quite old and > > clunky > > in comparison to some of its more contemporary competitors. > > Make is ubiquitous and widely known. We should leverage that > knowledge. The complexity of our project management problems in EDA > is not so great, and make fits them well. > > > Scons, for > > example, is a much better 'make' tool. > > Never heard of it. Never needed it to build anything. But a system > without make is crippled. > > > > > Chris > > -- > > Chris Smith <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
