X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:00:47 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: "Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: tEDAx (was: Re: [geda-user] RFC: edacore - should we reboot it?
 the EDA ecosystem) + help needed
In-Reply-To: <20170216163823.GA31909@visitor2.iram.es>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1702161748280.7286@igor2priv>
References: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1702130818300 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1702160811400 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv> <20170216163823 DOT GA31909 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-915389782-1487264447=:7286"
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--0-915389782-1487264447=:7286
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE



On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delor=
ie.com] wrote:

>> Why should we care: short term I believe tEDAx can solve a serious
>> design falw in our gschem* -> pcb* flow that I will describe in
>> another mail in another thread.
>
> Here TEDAX means: "T=C3=A9cnico Especialista en Desactivaci=C3=B3n de Art=
efactos
> Explosivos". These are the people which are called for example when a
> bomb from a previous war is found.
>
> In English the more or less equivalent term is EOD (explosive ordnance
> disposal).
>
> What kind of bomb are you trying to prevent from exploding? :-)

hehe, nice!

I will totally misinterpreting your question, taking it seriously.

I'd say, if I was 100% confident that a new interchange format got=20
accepted by...

1. ... gEDA: the pcbfwd.scm time-bomb that would explode sooner or later=20
in one or more of the 4 related projects (there is a parallel [dev] thread=
=20
about this)

2. ... other sch cap software: file format explosion - we need to be able=
=20
to import less formats if more support tEDAx.

(I have no high hopes on these, but it was so cheap to roll it that I=20
would have regretted not trying it.)

Other than that: it could prevent yet another file format explosion. We=20
see some 3rd party FOS sch cap capable software that can't produce an=20
usable netlist for a PCB flow. We are pondering extending them. Instead of=
=20
inventing a different format for each, then implementing one more import=20
plugin in pcb-rnd per format, we would probably implement tEDAx on all.

Regards,

Igor2

[P.S. Thanks for not joining the flame wars.]

--0-915389782-1487264447=:7286--