gEDA-user: PCB "Standard Libraries"

["Gordon Stalker" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, This is my first post as a user so I hope I can be forgiven if what I
have to say sounds a bit naive.

I have been designing electronics for many years now, and have recently
decided to start-up on my own a PCB designer.
The idea of creating  open source schematic capture and layout programs is I
think an excellent one. For too long software companies have been charging
far too much for software offerings which are incompatible with each other
and follow no agreed standard.

I remember (vaguely) a thread here discussing (among other things) surface
mount 'footprints' and the suggestion that a standard such as IPC-SM-782.
Recently (January) IPC-superceded that standard with IPC-7351, and has made
available the pages describing a nomenclature for surface mount components,
for download.
Also a free 'library' viewer for a lagre number of components is available,
with an 'upgrade' availabe to create and output library files for a number
of commercial programmes.
This represents (For me anyway ) a step in the right direction albeit for
the 'wrong' reason, as previously no standard that I know of described a
standard method of naming copper lands for components.
The lack of such a standard (or at least it's obscurity should one exist!)
is the cause of a great deal of grief for PCB and circuit designers (Often
not the same!). The amount of confusion caused by everone and their aunt
having a their own naming scheme (If any, I have worked in places where each
member of the design staff had thier own individual library! The lack of a
single naming policy within the comany made library sharing impossible. They
are still in business but they don't design stuff anymore, ) *and* they owe
me money.)

It seems to me that this standard, along with the library generator, is too
attractive for any serious PCB designer to ignore, and will be adopted
almost universally.
Because of this, I think  it would make perfect sense for any Open Source
PCB or schematic project to seriously consider adoption of this standard,
and integrate it in some way.

Similar problems apply to through-hole patterns, where no clear standard
seems to apply (even allowing for JEDEC). If anyone knows of a similar
standard for through-hole which is clear, concise, and defines a
nomenclature (prefferably backed up with a footprint generator) I for one
would be very grateful to hear of it.

Gordon Stalker