Re: gEDA-user: Land pattern naming convention per IPC

[John Luciani <jluciani@xxxxxxxxx>]

Stuart,

  I was thinking of writing a Perl script for those files but I wasn't
sure whether translating those files is a copyright violation. I do
not believe that there is copyright protection
for the underlying data although there may be for the creative
organization of the data.

  I am thinking of renaming all of my footprints to conform to
IPC7351. My only issue
is that some of the manufacfurer recommendations for particular packages differ.
How do you resolve the differences in the naming convention? My
thought was to attach a manufacturer name suffix.

(* jcl *)

On 6/3/05, Stuart Brorson <sdb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Guys --
> 
> I happened to find a very interesting document calling out
> specifications for land pattern naming.  You can get it here:
> 
> http://www.pcblibraries.com/resources/7351.asp
> 
> It's the last item in the list.
> 
> The land pattern naming convention is apparently an IPC standard.
> Perhaps if we adhered to this convention when creating footprint
> libraries, then we could eliminate some of the confusion surrounding
> the whole light vs. heavy symbol issue.  That is, we could always
> point to the standardized names for the parts when newbies ask about
> which footprints exist.
> 
> BTW:  This web site has a number of interesting footprints for
> download.  They are distributed in a strange compressed format.  If
> you download the viewer and look at the footprint files with it, you
> will see the footprint info is somewhat comprehensible ASCII
> cleartext.  Since the footprints claim to be IPC conformant, maybe a
> Perl script coule be used to convert them to gPCB format?
> 
> Of course, John Luciani's massive collection of footprints already
> sets the standard for gPCB, so maybe we don't need these other
> footprints at all!
> 
> Stuart
>