Re: gEDA-user: PCB paste layer, revisited.

[Steven Michalske <smichalske@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 16, 2007, at 12:02 AM, Dave N6NZ wrote:

>
>
> I certainly see your point. The question this design decision  
> hinges on
> is what unit of information do we want to be able to share.
>
> If a footprint is entirely self-contained, then the sharing of  
> footprint
> files is easier.  If a footprint relies on external base definitions,
> then library maintenance is easier *after* you have made a
> self-consistent library, but bringing in an individual footprint coded
> by someone else would require considerable homework.
>
> Now, perhaps with appropriate coding conventions, we could have the  
> best
> of both.  If we could agree on a common set of pad names, or a pad
> naming convention, then a footprint could often (one hopes) be coded
> against well-known pad names.  But then we would have essentially two
> libraries.  Opportunities for inconsistency would multiply.
>
> Frankly, I rarely code footprints anyway.  I code footprint  
> generators.
>    (Or use DJ's.) I would never be in the position of editing every
> footprint to update a pad definition.  I would tweak a generator and
> rebuild the footprint library.

Having the footprints promote their pad stack to a global level might  
be the answer here.

The footprint contains its stack,  the footprint's stacks are  
promoted,  the footprint's stacks could then be superseded by global  
stack modifications.

a pad stack viewer could be made to display the pad stacks in use and  
also allow for editing.

by coding up the stacks in the symbols we simplify brining this  
feature into existence.   then adding the capability of a global pad  
stack modification

Steve


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