Re: gEDA-user: Footprint-guide -- is arc description wrong?

[Stefan Salewski <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am Dienstag, den 31.07.2007, 06:51 -0400 schrieb Stuart Brorson:
> 
> Actually I haven't touched the footprint doc in over 2 1/2 years, and
> a lot of the info is therefore likely outdated.
> 

I think that most contents of the footprint doc is up to date, and it is
very helpful for understanding footprints and for creating footprints
with a text editor or a script.

> I've never been a fan of the PCB manual since it is over 100 pages of
> hard to read verbiage with no screenshots  (just IMO).

I read the whole pcb manual some weeks ago. It was no fun, some parts I
have not really understood, but I have learned a lot.

> Newbies
> probably find it intimidating, particularly if all they want to do is
> draw a footprint.  However, it is authoritative, and will always be 
> up-to-date since it is autogenerated.

Indeed pcb manual is not useful for beginners.

> 
> Therefore, I wonder if I should withdraw the footprint doc and
> point to the File Format section of the on-line PCB manual?

No. I think PCB manual can not replace the footprint doc. Maybe
inclusion of (a modified?) footprint doc in PCD manual is possible?

I think missing, unclear, confusing or verbose documentation is a heavy
burden of gEDA/gaf/pcb. 

I myself can not contribute much to a better documentation currently,
because I am still learning using gEDA, and writing good english is not
easy for me. (As a small contribution to gEDA, I have edited the german
wikipedia entry about gEDA some weeks ago.)

Best regards

Stefan Salewski





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