Re: gEDA-user: Re: LED 100 != 5mm LED ?

[Dan McMahill <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy Peters wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Dan McMahill wrote:
>
> > Andy Peters wrote:
>
>
> > > However, when an install of pcb comes with a warning that there  are  
> > > errors in the m4 libraries, yet doesn't say what footprints  have  
> > > errors (not to mention: why haven't these errors been  fixed?), 
> > > leads  one to simply not trust the provided libraries at  all.
> >
> >
> > Could you point me to where that warning is?  It needs to be updated.
>
>
> It's in the wiki: http://geda.seul.org/wiki/ 
> geda:pcb_tips#how_do_pcb_s_footprints_work
> and I know I've seen it elsewhere.

So this is funny.  The 0805 footprint it talks about in the 'newlib' 
section has been deleted since it has a non-standard name and has not 
been verified against any real standard.  The m4 library on the other 
hand has 3 tiered IPC conforming in name and footprint footprints for 
most of the 2 pin surface mount footprints like 0805's....  I doubt that 
whoever wrote that section actually looked at the libraries.  In fact, I 
just took a look at the newlib footprint talked about there and I 
wouldn't use it.  The pads have a larger gap and are narrower than any 
of the least/nominal/most material recommendations from IPC.  Perhaps 
this proves my point that there seems to be a misguided trust of newlib 
and mistrust of pcblib footprints.

Anyway, I've updated that section of the wiki to more accurately reflect 
the current state of affairs.

-Dan








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