Re: gEDA-user: Mirrored headers: how do I define the footprints ?

[Karel Kulhavy <clock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> What GAF is missing is a giant global database mapping vendor part
> numbers to the corresponding symbol sets, footprints, and values.
> Imagine the possibilities - you add a resistor symbol, and a "find it"
> dialog lets you navigate the thousands of resistor types, eventually
> narrowing it down parametrically to the one you want.  Default
> preferences for starting search (803 SMD, SOICs, mil spec, vendor,
> etc), full footprint support, etc.

This is the last thing that makes Orcad et al. survive beside PCB ;-)
I suggest that:
1) a web upload form was set up to facilitate user's uploading of their
   packages, and users encourage to dump the loads of private symbols they
   make there, conforming to given set of rules, of course.
2) A system of classification of the elements was unified. For example, I
   needed to add an attribute "package" besides footprint because it is
   used for automatic generation of shopping list and the guy in the shop
   isn't interested if the SOD80 diode will be reflow soldered or not.
   Also footprint "db25_tbl" doesn't say much to the guy. He needs to se
   "DB25 male 90deg for PCB gold-plated"
   Also footprint specification should be somehow stated. For example
   what dimension drawing the footprint was made according to or what each
   argument of the M4 macro means.

Some parametrism may be necessary too. Either it should be said that holes
in PCB mean always the final hole diameter, or the user should be allowed
to choose what the diameter means during instantiation of the footprint,
or there should be separate footprint for drill and final size diameters.
Also the design rules are changing. Sometimes the footprint is invalid because
the pins are too big and too close. So that they should automatically shrink,
not mentioning soldermask being corrected for typical soldermask-copper distance
for the given design class.

Also, would it be possible to make ->footprint conversion accept rectangles for
pads? The current line-based system is hyper-annoying, unless I am witless
and missing some obvious cool way how to predetermine the line thickness and
location.

Cl<