[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: gEDA-user: Solving the light/heavy symbol problem

> I say go with this - because users already have to modify nearly all
> the symbols they use in a schematic when using the existing library.
> This way, most of the symbols will have default footprints and other
> attributes that will do just fine.

Ok, then how do we generate the thousands, if not millions, of symbols
we'll need?  How do we choose what the "default" set of parts should
be?  Just among the few of us here, we've already found out that just
picking through-hole vs smt is not a clear choice.

If we come up with a way to do that, we'll also have a way for the
user to do it.  No matter how complete a heavy-only library is, it
won't be complete enough, so we *still* need to make sure the user has
a way to add to their library.

And consider that, no matter how heavy a symbol is, you can always
make it heavier.  Let's say we ship a symbol for a 4.7k 0603 resistor.
Does it include manufacter's part numbers?  Vendor name?  Tolerance?
These are additional data the user could add.  Where does it come
from?  How do they add it?  Should we add it up front?  Why?

I like the idea of including a set of heavy symbols as a "starter
pack" - maybe a few sets of them (through-hole vs smt, for example) -
but I think we need to also allow for a set of light symbols too, and
think about the process of user-heavyifying them.  This, along with
"how do I create new symbols/footprints" is a common stumbling block
for new users.

geda-user mailing list