gEDA-user: wasteful for all gEDA users to be doing footprint libraries separately

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Mark Rages wrote:

> It seems wasteful for all gEDA users to be doing this.

(I also realize that footprint library
> maintenance is hard work, and I'm not volunteering.)
We've talked of ways to set up some hard system that helps
raise the trustworthiness of footprints.  Would you please review the past 
archives on it and suggest some new ideas?
Most of the ideas are about checklists that people sign when they do a test like 
send a board to fab and assemble it successfully.
Another step to verifying a footprint is comparing against the datasheet package 
drawing somehow.

It gets tricky with surface mount parts where hot air reflow might work 
differently and best use a different pad shape than IR reflow assembly.

Make a specific suggestion.  It won't go ignored here.

John G


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