kicad-developers team mailing list archive
-
kicad-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #32618
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
As a macOS package dev, I am in favor of enabling everything that
isn't experimental by default. This means I have to be explicit about
things I am disabling.
Adam
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All of your arguments are valid. For me personally, I'm fine with
> enabling everything that's ready for release since I build from source
> and it's not an issue on any of the platforms I use for development. If
> that is the consensus, then I will enable them. I'm just trying to be
> fair to our package devs.
>
> On 12/27/2017 05:42 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
>> 2017-12-27 23:04 GMT+01:00 Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>>:
>>
>> Here are my thoughts on the current options that are disable be default.
>> Nothing is experimental except USE_WX_GRAPHICS_CONTEXT which really
>> shouldn't be used and the WX_OVERLAY which is macos specific.
>>
>> KICAD_SCRIPTING, I'm fine with setting this to ON now that we have a
>> sane solution for Python scripting on windows. All other platforms
>> should have python 2 support for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> KICAD_SCRIPTING_MODULES, this can be enabled as well sense it goes hand
>> in hand with KICAD_SCRIPTING.
>>
>> KICAD_SCRIPTING_WXPYTHON, this is not as clear cut as it would seem.
>> Sometimes the wxPython build gets out of sync with the wxWidgets builds
>> on certain platforms which is known to cause issues. Enabling this
>> could cause issues for package devs.
>>
>>
>> It will also if they enable it explicitly... On multiple platforms this
>> ABI check between wx and wxpython is not marked as fatal and only
>> servers as a hint that you should poke the maintainers to rebuild
>> wxpython. For some reason they seems to remember to rebuild wx when the
>> compiler gets updated but not wxpython. But they should really do it,
>> there is no reason no to.
>>
>>
>>
>> KICAD_SCRIPTING_ACTION_MENU AFAIK depends on KICAD_SCRIPTING_WXPYTHON so
>> enabling this will dependent upon enabling KICAD_SCRIPTING_WXPYTHON.
>>
>>
>> And then what? The packager can still disable those options if he needs
>> to. IMHO it is better that the packager does not need to explicitly
>> enable any options to get a kicad build configuration that we advertise
>> as working features. All those features do work on all the three major
>> platforms. Linux, windows and macos.
>>
>>
>>
>> KICAD_USE_OCE, I'm not so comfortable enabling this by default due to
>> issues between version of OCE. It might be best if this is left up to
>> the package devs.
>>
>>
>> What issues are we talking about here? If we never enable it we will not
>> discover the issue as quickly as we could. We are not removing control
>> from the packager here. He can still disable the option if it causes him
>> any isses.
>>
>>
>>
>> KICAD_USE_SPICE, I'm not comfortable enabling this due to the fact that
>> some linux packages of ngspice do not build with --libngspice enabled
>> which will cause build config issues. I would to default to the package
>> devs to enable this as necessary.
>>
>>
>> This is the issue of the packager on that system. If he is lazy he can
>> start by disabling this option untill he gets time to fix his platforms
>> ngspice package. It should be good now that a release of ngspice have
>> been made that has our required fixes. If the ngspice people did not
>> make that release I would be okay with having it off by default.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/09/2017 11:46 AM, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote:
>> > I think that this message is important, and I feel a decision on this
>> > matter features has to be done by the project manager, basically
>> give a
>> > pointer to what should be used to as far extent as possible.
>> >
>> > Wayne, this is a package dev that wants to know this and while I
>> do not
>> > know who are package devs, the only package dev has expressed a
>> need for
>> > this decision. Please dont just ignore it.
>> >
>> > And yes, the coming patch submissions is dependent on what
>> features are
>> > deemed "standard"
>> >
>> > -Kristoffer
>> >
>> > On 12/07/2017 08:58 PM, Simon Richter wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On 07.12.2017 19:08, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. it is possible kicad
>> could have
>> >>> different feature sets depending on the availability of
>> dependencies on
>> >>> the target platform. The kicad project has no control over
>> this. If a
>> >>> platform doesn't have dependency support for spice, they can still
>> >>> provide a kicad package without spice support. That's better
>> than no
>> >>> kicad.
>> >>
>> >> Right, but we still need to give some guidance on the status of
>> >> features. As it is now, new features are introduced as default-off
>> >> "experimental" stuff that is only to be used by a select few, then at
>> >> some point we enable it for nightlies, mostly driven by
>> availability of
>> >> dependencies and a vague feeling that features should be tested,
>> and at
>> >> some point the feature has become something that should have been
>> >> enabled by default a long time ago (but nobody can tell the exact
>> date
>> >> when).
>> >>
>> >> We need a bit of a process here to promote feature status, e.g.
>> >>
>> >> experimental new stuff, not for general use
>> >> optional => add to nightlies
>> >> standard => enable by default
>> >> required => remove option
>> >>
>> >> I think all the new features for v5 have reached "optional"
>> status, and
>> >> they have been enabled in nightlies as far as possible. The next
>> >> question is whether they are "standard" and should be part of the
>> stable
>> >> release, including questions by users and a commitment to file
>> >> compatibility. Probably yes, but this is a project management
>> decision
>> >> that will affect requirements for patch submissions in the next
>> release
>> >> cycle, so it needs to be an explicit decision.
>> >>
>> >> Simon
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
>> >> Post to : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
>> >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
>> > Post to : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
>> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
>> Post to : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
References
-
Simulator towards 5.0
From: Kristoffer Ödmark, 2017-12-04
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Nick Østergaard, 2017-12-05
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Wayne Stambaugh, 2017-12-05
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Nick Østergaard, 2017-12-05
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Maciej Sumiński, 2017-12-05
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Nick Østergaard, 2017-12-05
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Maciej Sumiński, 2017-12-05
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Simon Richter, 2017-12-05
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Kristoffer Ödmark, 2017-12-06
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Simon Richter, 2017-12-06
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Kristoffer Ödmark, 2017-12-06
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Wayne Stambaugh, 2017-12-07
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: kristoffer Ödmark, 2017-12-07
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Wayne Stambaugh, 2017-12-07
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Simon Richter, 2017-12-07
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Kristoffer Ödmark, 2017-12-09
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Wayne Stambaugh, 2017-12-27
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Nick Østergaard, 2017-12-27
-
Re: Simulator towards 5.0
From: Wayne Stambaugh, 2017-12-27