Re: gEDA-user: Broken TO92 footprint

[DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Perhaps, and as DJ says the actual mapping varies from one
> transistor type to another.  However, this particular footprint
> simply doesn't work for any Gschem->PCB use case, hence my
> replacement.

I think, if we were to accept such a change, what we'd need is a range
of TO92 packages with all the permutations of EBC and SGD, like
TO92_EBC.fp, TO92_ECB.fp, TO92_SDG.fp, etc.  Likewise for SOT23,
SOT323, SOT523, SOT723, TO220, etc.  We'd probably need variants for
regulators, like TO220_IGO.fp (in,gnd,out) vs TO220_IOG.fp (7805 vs
3.3v LDO).

I suggest using a script :-)

(geek points if it's an M4 script ;)

The unadorned footprint should match industry standard pin numbering.

IMHO a footprint which obviously breaks everything is better than a
footprint that silently breaks some things.  I don't want to lull
newbies into a false sense of security.  *I* have been burned by that.


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