Re: gEDA-user: Matching footprints with symbols

[Dave N6NZ <n6nz@xxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> 
> 3) There is consensus, that the current library is in poor shape. But 
> there are diverging opinions how a good default library should look like. 
> 
And I doubt there will ever be a "one size fits all" library.  The flexibility of the current system is it's strength, you can pretty much always get what you want, or close enough.   OTOH, the flexibility of the current system causes no end of confusion to new users.

I think that there are probably different libraries for different user communities.  I can think of two footprint libraries right off: a) result must be easy to hand solder -- either because the user is a hobbyist or someone who wants to create kits for a hobbyist community where you want good results to come easily, and b) result targets automated manufacturing at low cost, using lots of SMT.

And when it comes to symbols, then it gets into religious arguments :)  I like symbols that might pass for ANSI compliant. And I split the power/ground/infrastructure into a second block. Either of those ideas can make other people wince. So it gets tangled up in methodology arguments, too.

So, in an ideal world, I could see having different communities ("Library SIGs") support different libraries.  A community/library being defined by a list of design rules and methodology guidelines.

Anyway, all that said, I think that is expecting a lot for the gEDA community to form library SIGs around different design rule manifestos.  There just aren't enough of us to go around.  For the time being we are all Library SIGs of one person each :)

-dave




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