Re: gEDA-user: DRC question...

[Dan McMahill <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I removed the minimum annulus based on copper width check.  And for 
older .pcb files which don't specify the min annulus, the min width is 
used as the default.

Steven Michalske wrote:
> 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