Re: gEDA-user: footprints -- novice`s problems

[DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> And I'd argue that even that isn't enough to qualify as a thorough 
> verification.  I might do a proto board without silk or soldermask and 
> everything looks good except that the silk and soldermask for the 
> footprint is messed up.  Or I might be able to hand solder it but not 
> have it be reliable or able to be reliably assembled in a factory 
> environment.

So far, we've been going with the "vetted" flag, which just means
"I've used this footprint in a board that worked".

> I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can because every little bit 
> helps.  I'm just saying there are many different levels of verification :)

Yeah.

> But on the instantiating each one bit, I've verified that at least there 
> are no m4 syntax errors (there used to be).  I have most of whats needed 
> in place to automatically instantiate all footprints.  In fact, we could 
> probably use some of the gedasymbols.org scripts to have pcb try to load 
> every single footprint and spit out a list of any which may have pcb 
> syntax errors in them.

Well, just pcb built with the batch hid should be enough.


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user