Re: gEDA-user: latest PCB w/gsch2pcb deletes parts?

[Matt Ettus <boyscout@xxxxxxxxx>]

I was able to fix this problem by going back to an older PCB CVS.

One question -- why are there multiple 0603 footprints?  Why wouldn't
you want to use the IPC one?  All these versions makes for a lot of
confusion.

Matt

On 12/6/05, Stuart Brorson <sdb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I recently upgraded to the latest PCB CVS.  Now when I run gsch2pcb on
> > > an already existing pcb file many of my components get deleted.  Also
> > > new 0603 caps no longer have silkscreen around them.  Is it possible
> > > that changes to PCB caused this?  I didn't change gsch2pcb.
> >
> > Yes, latest pcb from cvs does not have silk around the 0603 footprint.
> > IPC-7351 seems to indicate no room for silk on 0603.  The newer 0603 (or
> > preferably the IPC-7351 compliant names for 0603 -- CAPC1608N for
> > example) in the ~geda  library should be much better from a soldering
> > point of view too.  The previous one was no good.
>
> A tangential point to this:  If you use newlib footprints, John
> Luciani's caps have partial silk at the ends of the parts which help
> determine the component body size during placement.  And (shameless
> plug) some time ago I wrote a perl utility called smtgen which
> generates footprints for two terminal passives if you give it the
> physical parameters like length, width, pad dimensions, etc.  You give
> it all parameters on the command line, and it writes footprint to
> STDOUT.  It draws a full rectangle around the part on the silkscreen
> layer.  I put it on my website for interested parties to use:
>
> http://www.brorson.com/gEDA/
>
> The resulting footprints may or may not be IPC standard (I haven't
> paid attention to recommendations for dealing with the silkscreen),
> but I have used them and they work.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Stuart
>