Re: gEDA: Re: Changes to libgeda to support gafrc

[sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson)]

Hi Guys --

I just checked in a bunch of changes which implement the new RC file
readin scheme as described below.  I have also renamed system-commonrc
to system-gafrc.    

The changes compile without problems here, and the programs all seem
to work.  When you get a chance, please check the code out of CVS, do
"makereconfig && make config && make install" as usual and give it a
quick test.  If you find a problem, please let me know.

Thanks,

Stuart




> 
> Hi All,
> 
> >$system/gafrc
> >$home/gafrc
> >./gafrc
> >$system/gschemrc
> >$home/gschemrc
> >./gschemrc
> >
> 	Okay this order is fine with me too.  I really didn't have
> a good reason for advocating the other way.
> 
> 
> >It works fine.  The only problem is that I get a warning when it tries
> >to find the "required system-gafrc" file:
> 
> 	This message will go away once you rename the system-commonrc 
> to system-gafrc, right?
> 
> [snip]	
> >I like Peter's suggestion that the system-commonrc become the
> >system-gafrc.  This is a good first step on the road to migrating
> >towards using gafrc everywhere & deprecating the old g[schem | netlist
> >| attrib | symcheck]rc system.  It does require some changes to the
> >*rc.in files -- particularly in the symbols directory -- but that I
> >don't mind doing.
> 
> 	Okay.
> 
> >
> >I don't think the old system should go away; that might cause breakage
> >of legacy schematics.  However, we can incorporate the new gafrc
> >system while deprecating the old system for new designs.
> 
> 	
> 	I don't think we will ever be able to get rid of the other rc files,
> mainly because things that are gschem specific have to go somewhere.
> 
> >
> >One question:  If I make changes to libgeda, I would like to have
> >folks test my stuff.  Are there any volunteers out there who are
> >willing to get stuff out of CVS, build it and test it when I post an
> >update?  Peter?  
> 
> 	I'll review and test the changes.  Feel free to checkin the changes
> when you get a chance.
> 
> >In general, it would be a good thing to have a few beta testers who
> >can verify that the code in CVS builds reliability.
> 
> 	If you break CVS, don't worry about it.  Things are easily fixed.
> Thanks.
> 
> 								-Ales
> 
>