Re: gEDA-user: gattrib

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Mike Bushroe wrote:

> As pointed out
>   above, a DIP-16 is a through-hole device in any process, the pins are
>   always 0.100 inches apart, the part number defines if it is a typical
>   300 mill spacing, or a wide 600 mill. What ever process you use to
>   attach the chip to a circuit board, those things never change for that
>   physical part number.

Yes. Therefore footprint=DIP16, as recommended in the "footprint naming conventions" document, should be fine.

>      The closest I can guess to something that would be 'process
>   dependent' would be the size of the copper pads, and possibly the
>   exclusion zone around them.

Who says there are pads? Some still use wire-wrap. gEDA would be a fine way to feed an automated wire-wrap process, although I don't know if anyone has actually done this. Imagine, then, feeding the identical schematics to a pcb flow once the wire-wrap prototype is working...

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




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