> Just to put the record straight (just in case), I did try google a > little.
Excellent! I stand corrected! > Which made me try the spice-directive-1.sym and > spice-model-1.sym from "spice" library components in gschem. These > allowed me to include a file, or so it seems since I couldn't make it to > work for I couldn't find detailed documentation on these components on > the web. It's been a while since I used spice-sdb, but I think you can use the spice-include-1.sym symbol to include some arbitrary SPICE cards into teh netlist. Try "gnetlist -h" to see what the behavior of the include symbol is. Also, the spice-directive-1.sym symbol will insert arbitrary SPICE cards into your netlist. Note that since attributes can have multiple lines, you can use one symbol to put several cards (lines) of SPICE statements into your netlist. > So, yes I am a newbie, but not clueless. I did try google, but maybe not > *thoroughly*. There is a whole lot of documentation about spice, but I > haven't been able to find a whole lot on gschem. Will give yours a try. My document about spice-sdb is included with the gEDA distribution, as well as being available on the web. I am not against answering questions, and am always happy to help somebody who has made an honest to help himself effort first. As for this morning's little flame-fest, I do think that calls to improve the documentation are best answered with a request for participation. I have contributed a number of docs to the gEDA project, as well as code. Interestingly, I have received (and gratefully incorporated) lots of patches to my code (including to spice-sdb), but I have almost never received patches to my documentation. I get suggestions, but no patches. If open-source stuff is not well documented, it's apparently because most open-source developers just can't be bothered to write documentation, or even submit patches against existing documents. Why is that? Stuart
