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

Re: gEDA-user: chip data directories in a library ( library packages )

> I like the idea of creating a library group containing all info related
> to a manufactured part or part range.

Library group?  Or just a library?  (not picking on the name, just
wondering what you think the difference is, or why such a difference
might be needed)

Do we need to be able to group libraries?  Or should we just merge
them into a bigger library?

> I think the name package could create confusion with layout package
> used to implement a circuit, some of which have different numbers of
> pins, so what do you all think of this name for a library group:
> In the context of a library call them chip data directories, or chips for short.

You think "chips" will be less confusing than "package" ?  I think I'd
rather make up a name than re-use a word so common in our field...

But I'm not worried about names just yet :-

> I like that.  I've been thinking in the past-way-of-doing-it-box and
> I've decided there's not much reason to want to add metadata to a
> footprint if you have a connection between footprint and metadata
> made by them being in a data dir container.  Doesn't matter what
> container.


Don't confuse footprint with element, though.  Elements should have
all the appropriate metadata based on what actual part they represent
in the design.  How that metadata gets into them, we're still working
on ;-)

geda-user mailing list