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

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

   On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:14 PM, DJ Delorie <[1]dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

   > Yes users must be able to add metadata, ie: company internal part
   > numbers, document numbers, etc.

     Do they add meta-data to the symbol, the footprint, or store it

   Well, as an example, I insert some unique identifier (company part
   number), or keyword, etc in some field, or even as a comment in the
   symbol or footprint file. Later, I can grep for the unique identifier,
   and find all the places I've used it. This kind of thing has been
   helpful for building BOMs that the purchasing folk won't try to have
   you tarred and feathered for.

     We *do* have the option of changing our symbol-footprint library
     a symbol-metadata-footprint scheme.  Maybe gnetlist is feeling left
     out, and wants its own library and GUI :-)

   > Heck, it would also be nice to be able to switch footprints from
   > within PCB; for example, when changing a board from thru-hole to
   > SMT.

     I've considered that too.  It means either pcb has to be able to
     to gschem, or gschem and pcb need to share a separate metadata
     container.  I.e. a project would be schematics+metadata+layout, not
     just schematics+layout.

   It looks to me like the schem + metadata + layout is where you're
   headed. I can't see how else to integrate all that stuff, and still
   have gSchem + PCB remain separate entities (which is as it should be).
   Couldn't you consider maintaining some backwards-compatibility by
   having the metadata file simply contain references to the symbol files
   (plus other garbage, spice, kitchen sinks, etc), and footprint files?
   That should only require a minimal effort on the part of gSchem to read
   the new metadata file.
   Here's another link to the IPC-2581 stuff.


   1. mailto:dj@xxxxxxxxxxx
   2. http://webstds.ipc.org/2581/2581intro.htm

geda-user mailing list