Re: gEDA-user: auditing symbols

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 18:03 -0800, David Griffith wrote:
> Wasn't there talk some time ago about fully auditing the stock set of 
> gschem symbols and pcb footprints?  I'm frequently stumbling over 
> contradictions and I think now would be a good time to chuck out the old 
> m4 stuff once and for all.

There was talk, but not specifically of an audit. It was more a re-think
of what symbols are shipped as part of the main geda-symbols package,
and whether we could move some of the existing ones to a -contrib
package.

There has been no talk about this for PCB, although some care there
couldn't hurt.

Biggest "-1" vote I can swing on the suggestion to "chuck out the old m4
stuff".

There are actually a load of good footprints in that lot, and they make
up about 90% of the symbols I actually use.

If we had to chuck anything out, we should look towards the shipped
"newlib" ones in PCB. IMO, they form a completely incoherent and mostly
useless set.

M4 is one of many ways we can define a series of footprints to be
generated using a script / macro. There is nothing "wrong" with them,
and no one forces you to use M4 at run-time any more.


-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)



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