Re: gEDA-user: Hi.... first post

[Andy Peters <devel@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:20 AM, C P Tarun wrote:

> > geda and pcb don't care if the pinnumbers are numbers or strings. As
> > long as they are the same.
> >
> > From a preference point of view I like the pin numbers to match the
> > component data sheet.
>
> This is the part I too would have thought was natural. I would have  
> thought
> that "B", "C", and "E" were more sensible pin numbers in the symbols
> than "1", "2", and "3".
>
> Also, I have read the section about transistor pin mapping between
> symbol and footprint here:
>
>   http://geda.seul.org/docs/current/tutorials/gsch2pcb/transistor- 
> guide.html
>
> The author specifies two schemes for achieving this, and chooses one.
> I would have thought a third scheme would be better, where all  
> transistor
> symbols have pins labelled "B", "C", and "E", and there will be  
> different
> versions of the TO92 (or TO5 or whatever) footprint, called "TO92- 
> EBC",
> "TO92-CBE", and so on.

To preserve my sanity, I simply prefer that the footprints have pin  
numbers 1, 2 and 3 in the usual order.  That way I have ONE TO92  
footprint that can be used with any TO92 device (like a voltage  
regulator or a reference or temperature sensor or whatever, in  
addition to transistors).

And people think heavy symbols are a problem!  Multiple footprints  
that are identical except for the pin numbers sounds like overkill to  
me.

> What is the general opinion about keeping symbol pin numbers for
> transistors as "B", "C" and "E"? Isn't this better?

See above.

-a



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