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

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

   I'm have no a lot of expirience in PCB creation, so may be I don't know
   something, but I have following suggestions:
   Just now my workflow is the next:
   1. I draw scheme in gschem.
   2. I run gsch2pcb and look for errors like this:
   WARNING: C5 has no footprint attribute so won't be in the layout.
   C5: deleted element 0805 (value=20pF)
   3. I go again to gschem and manually fix missed footprints.
   As I understend on the last step gattrib coud be used
   But for me it is useless, 'cos I just can enter value and don't see the
   preview of footprint.
   So, may be it would be usefull to add for gattrib preview feature vith
   library navigation and add to gschem somekinde of bridge to new gattrib

   2011/5/21 DJ Delorie <[1]dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>

   > I would love an easier way to generate footprints.

     Now that we're pre-parsing all the M4 footprints anyway, perhaps we
     could allow for a range of scripting options in the Makefiles that
     generate the library?  There have been a few footprint-specific
     languages developed over the years.

   > > In all cases, one key problem is that there are so many potential
   > > heavy symbols that we cannot possibly have "all" of them.
   > Nobody needs all possible heavy symbols, and disk space is cheap.

     No, but if we choose a subset, we pretty much guarantee that there
     will be users who need something we left out.  I don't want to be
     replicating Digikey's database, for example, but any part I leave
     is a part someone else might need.

   > > defer the problem to the user, who only puts effort intothe
   > > symbols they needed.
   > Which puts many (often novice users) to the task of creating their
   > own symbol/footprints, and probably doing it wrong.

     Hmm... but does this mean we should do the work for them, or does
     mean we need to come up with a better way for them to do the work?

   > > * New users should find it easy to make their first PCB.
   > Yes! New users, casual users, experienced users, all users.

     This is why I see no clear win between "just heavy" and "just light"
     different users at different levels need different solutions.  A new
     (to geda) user should be able to pick common parts from a list and
     make *something* that works, but an experienced user will eventually
     need to make their own.

   > Don't ship gSchem or PCB with any. At first run, and in preferences,
   > and in config files, give users the ability to choose their own
   > poison. Use git to

     If we go with the idea of "more than one library", we can ship a
     starter library (like, Radio Shack 500-in-1 parts list, or "Spice
     with examples) and let the user import libraries from, say,
     With my scheme, that would be a "starter database" instead, but
     similar results.
     Actually, with gedasymbols, *anyone* can make a small self-contained
     heavy symbol library.  The problem happens when you want to make a
     self-contained *light* symbol library, then you need more logic in
     tools to heavyify them.

   > synchronize with a (set of) master symbol and or footprints, and or
   > something else databases. Include options to use others' symbols /
   > parts (gedasymbols, luciani, etc). Include options for users to
   > share their own symbols via git. Create online symbol and footprint
   > generators that create standard footprints (at least for JEDEC
   > standard stuff) properly (according to best practices).

     hmmm... think about how a simple http:// changed the way we share
     information across the Internet.  Think of how Facebook changed the
     way people manage their social lives.  Are we prepared to put the
     effort into making something of *that* scale, for EDA?  It would be
     cool if we got it right, but a pain if we didn't.
     This also allows for footprints-by-cgi, another level of scripting
     them.  Or

   > By the way, if you guys decide to tackle a big re-write, the IPC and
   > NIST tried to tackle this problem a few years ago.

     We've been using "standard" names for new footprints at least.  When
     we can :-)

   geda-user mailing list


   1. mailto:dj@xxxxxxxxxxx
   2. http://dip-generator.pl/?pins=16&width=300mil
   3. mailto:geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   4. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user

geda-user mailing list