Re: gEDA-user: get-package-attribute sometimes returns "?" - ID: 3114991

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 23, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Armin Faltl wrote:

> John Doty wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:38 AM, kai-martin knaak wrote:
>>  
>>>> Everybody has their own working style: the library cannot
>>>> possibly cover everybody's.
>>>>      
>>> True. However it does not preclude the existence of a library
>>> that reasonably matches the needs of a large group of users.
>>> The other EDA packages I had the chance to work with, did a much better job at the library front. You could get quite far
>>> with their default library. My eagle oriented colleagues hardly dive into the symbol and/or footprint creation business.
>>>    
>> 
>> And they can't go all the places gEDA can go.
>> 
>> There is nothing whatever preventing somebody from constructing a symbol library that matches *their* notion of a reasonable gEDA flow. Publish on gedasymbols.
> I can't stand the reiteration of this stupid argument any longer.
> Whoever offered me a page on gedasymbols, please do so now.

DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> is the operator of the site.

> I'll provide my symbols and footprints with this features:
> 
> * symbols are smaller than the standard library
> 
> * all symbols and footprints are guaranteed to conform to IPC-7351B by definition
> with some shortcut-names as I like them as links
> 
> * where IPC-7351 doesn't define behaviour there is an auxiliarry document describing what is done

Excellent! Go for it!

For extra credit, make the symbols friendly to the SPICE flows we have. But that's a bunch of extra work, and there are some serious difficulties with making symbols both SPICE-friendly and pcb-friendly at this time. I certainly won't object if you don't try to go there.

> 
> Download-count will decide, who is right.

There is no "right". There are many ways to use gEDA. The folks who design hydraulic systems with gEDA won't use your symbols, but that doesn't make them wrong. 

A symbol library specifically designed for a particular purpose is a good thing, period. But a popularity contest is not a good way to judge the most effective software. If your library enables a single significant product to come out of gEDA (such as Matt Ettus's USRP), you should count that as a major success.

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