Re: gEDA-user: poll: How do you geda?

["John Luciani" <jluciani@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Mark Rages <markrages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Larry Doolittle
<ldoolitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Disorganized and questionable quality component libraries.
> This has been discussed to death, but without any concrete
> results.
>
>    - Larry
>

Can we just use luciani.org footprints and deprecate the current ones?
They are far better than the included footprints.   The included ones
are terrible (as in, I've had to throw away boards because they were
unusable).  It is not very user-friendly to ship broken footprints,
then when users complain, blame them for not double-checking all the
footprints and/or making their own library.

 
It is good to hear that you have found by library useful. Thank you.

It is not fair to group *all* of the user contributed libraries together.
Some work some may not work but this is true for  commercial and
non-commercial EDA packages. I have yet to see a CAD
group be able to use any EDA tool without some sort of library review.

I agree that some symbols (including mine) may be completely broken
but others may be broken for your process requirements while meeting
the process requirements of others. I believe there are a group of footprints
shipped with PCB that were generated to IPC-7351. IPC-7351 specifies
three process capabilities. For these symbols choosing the wrong one
could result in a throw-away board.

You should always check that a footprint meets your process requirements
and matches your component specifications. I am hoping that others double-check
my footprints before I make throw-away boards ;-)

(* jcl *)

-- 
http://www.luciani.org

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