Re: gEDA-user: New version of footprint file format doc

[Stefan Salewski <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stuart Brorson wrote:

>Due to popular demand, I have spent a good chunk of time at the code 
>sprint updating and revising the footprint creation document.

Thank you very much!

Some remarks:

1. Maybe page numbers for your PDF document would be fine?

2. 
> Do – Use the square bracket footprint definition syntax. 
> Avoid the round bracket footprint syntax;

I have ignored this strong advice when creating my own footprints lately.
I know that the new format is necessary for fine pitch metric parts. But
I think that lazy people like me will tend to ignore your advice if high
precision is not necessary -- typing so many zeros is no fun. So it may be
a good idea to give a reason WHY the old format should be avoided.  


>Open a footprint file in a directory on your PCB search path.  Typically,
>you will want to name the file something suggestive of the footprint(s) held
>within it.  One or more footprints (Elements) may live within a single file.
>No naming convention is enforced by PCB.  Therefore, no file name suffix
>is required, although you may want to devise your own naming convention.
>Examples might be “Res_0805_large.fpt” or “TQFP­44.pcbfootprint”.  

Two remarks: At a other position of your document you stated that footprints
should have the extension .fp. So please dont confuse people with names like
"Res_0805_large.fpt” or “TQFP­44.pcbfootprint”.
I do not understand the statement "One or more footprints (Elements) may live
within a single file." All newlib files seem to contain only one single 
footprint, and it was my impression that the filename is the real name of
the footprint  and that the name in the symbol-definition is arbitrary.
Can you make this point more clear please.

Best regards

Stefan Salewski






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