Re: gEDA-user: PCB lib.

[Xtian Xultz <xultz@ig.com.br>]

Em Qua 16 Jun 2004 10:26, Chad Robinson escreveu:
> Xtian Xultz wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:25:55 +0200
> >
> > Levente KOVACS <leva@interware.hu> wrote:
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>
> >>Reading the mails here, I see that most of you created own libraries. So
> >>did I.
> >>
> >>I have redrawn all the headers, for example, becouse the pads of the
> >>original headers ware too small.
> >>
> >>Maybe we could share thoes things. Does anyone know a site where to
> >>upload lib files?
> >
> > It is a great idea, but I am afraid about standards. The best is to make
> > the lib according to some standard, like JEDEC or IPC. The problem is
> > that I couldnt find any document about standards in footprints, and
> > without this I cant imagine that gEDA libraries can have a consistent
> > librarie to use gschem2ocb (I never used it...). So, if anyone have
> > documents about it, share with us please...
>
> Even if it's not very standard it's still a good idea. I was surprised when
> I couldn't find a TO-263 footprint, I figured this was a pretty standard
> part.
>
> Here's an idea. Why not have two sections of the library? One would contain
> all developer-submitted "core" footprints, and one would contain
> user-submitted items. There's functionally no difference between the two,
> but it serves as an indication to the user of where the footprint came from
> and its likelihood of keeping its name in the future.
>
> At this time I've stayed with a commercial product for ONLY one reason -
> footprints. It would just take too long to redraw the 300 or so footprints
> I need that I can't find in PCB. gschem is a little weird compared to what
> I'm used to, but I can get used to it. PCB is actually more sophisticated -
> my commercial product doesn't create copper pour clearances for new tracks,
> and that's just such a cool feature.
>
> If I could do a few a week and share these efforts with other users (to
> have some hope that I wouldn't be redrawing every single one myself) that
> would probably be enough to kick me over the edge.
>
> Regards,
> Chad

If i]you think you have a well-made with a good standard, maybe it is good 
start point, making a conversion tool (sometimes is easyer than it looks 
like). But ALLWAYS we need a north, and a document from JEDEC or IPC is the 
best to point to where the PCB library must go...