Re: gEDA-user: DRC question...

[Steven Michalske <smichalske@xxxxxxxxx>]

if we open a PCB file that doesn't specify an annulus min width then  
the annulus min width should be set to the min width of the copper  
lines.

I like the idea of expanding the vendor files to provide for the DRC  
and drill mappings,  making it a file that has the parameters seems  
like a good idea.

Hardkrash

On Mar 14, 2008, at 2:57 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:

>
>> I am not opposed to changing it to only apply the minimum annulus  
>> test
>> on holes.  I think the historic reason is pcb used to only have the  
>> min
>> width parameter.  But now that we've had the min annulus parameter  
>> for a
>> while we should probably flip the switch.  Any objections?
>
> No objections from me.  At some point we should expand the DRC
> parameters, too, but I'd rather change to a more flexible file format
> first so we don't have to keep adding positional parameters :-P
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user



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