On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 11:47:56AM -0500, Charles Lepple wrote: > On 2/25/06, Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suggest the gschem symbols DB-1.sym and DB-2.sym to be renamed to > > DE-1.sym and DE-2.sym because according to Wikipedia it's the correct > > designation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB25 > > Regardless of which designation is correct, gEDA convention seems to > prefer creating another new symbol with a higher version number > (DE-3), rather than editing an older symbol-- that is, unless the > older symbol is truly broken. More people will recognize DB-9 over > DE-9 when looking for parts. If you really want to retire DB-1.sym and > DB-2.sym, do you have a suggestion for an upgrade path? Symbolic > links, maybe? A "deprecated symbol" warning message?
Symlinks, if symlink not possible then copy. Plus implement symbol comments and add deprecated into symbol comment. CL< > > (I'm trying not to get hung up on the pedantry of the DB-9 vs DE-9 > debate, but it's really difficult...) > > -- > - Charles Lepple
