[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-user: wasteful for all gEDA users to be doing footprint libraries separately
On 2/13/07, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
My suggestion was in the other message:
"Yes, if there are errors, there should be a bug filed in the tracker
at pcb.sf.net. That's what I did when I encountered footprint bugs,
and they were fixed quickly. So maybe rather than a heroic effort to
proofread all the footprints, we should encourage users to file bugs
on them if they find a problem. Then the offending footprints can be
fixed or removed."
I have more ideas. I'll post again when they are more fully formed.
Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one.
- fortune cookie
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user