On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 07:42:54PM +0200, jp charras wrote: > >In fact, I was very hesitating when I added this feature about the best > >place to store the page layout filename. > > Am I am *still* hesitating.
The hardest thing would be telling Dick to change the format and add an attribute to the file format :D I think that the whole project file thing is becoming a relic from the (OrCAD/SDT era) like the stuff file or the component file, especially now that we have a templating system. The stuff file at least is gone. Given its 'position' the project file should contain stuff relavant to both eeschema, pcbnew and cvpcb (gerbview and the calculator are only utilities and don't need the project AFAIK). Looking in a typical .pro (a project I had aroud and kicad.pro) we have: - Root schematic and board name: OK, but they need to have the same name of the project file in practice, otherwise stuff will break - Some setting for eeschema (repeat and plotting) which probably would be better in eeschemarc (I think are there as default?) - eeschema libraries. Good until we have an 'unified' eeschema file. Could be argued that the sch file actually already contains the required lib names, but what to do when subsheet have differing/conflicting library requirement? AFAIK there is already a long plan for that. - Some settings for pcbnew (sizes, it seems). I don't know if they are still alive or settings from an old version (probable). All stuff pertaining to the board file only (and already stored there, except for defaults when creating a board) - pcbnew libraries. The board file actually doesn't depend on the library like the schematic (it doesn't instantiate, it copies), so I agree with the decision to not have the libraries in the board schema. Also there is the new fp table work in progress. - cvpcb libraries. I don't get this... why should pcbnew use a different set from the one used for generating the component file? So, in practice, the only thing is good the .pro file (*after* templating the root sheet and the board) is keeping the library list; I agree that a 'by user' or 'by installation' library definition only is not adequate (example: I don't want spice symbols in a conventional schematic and I keep separate footprint libraries for different fabrication technologies). At the end my opinion is that the wks should reside in the title block structure (like the other things); it's also the least surprising option for the user (probably he doesn't expect the board block to change when changing the schematic style). -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
