Re: gEDA-user: next PCB release - 1.99za vs 4.0

[Stephan Boettcher <boettcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> But I figure the top/inner/bottom "class" is what we need for
> importing footprints.  They'd be layered by class, not number, so they
> can adapt to whatever number of layers the board has.

Rigid-Flex boards have pads on more than two layers.  There are pads on
the rigid PCB, and pads for connectors on the ends of flexible parts.
And where you need those kind of boards, DRC and LVS verifications are
important to work. (*)

A generic format should allow for a lot more flexibility, not
necessarily with a lot of support from the GUIs.

E.g., ... footprints/vias could call for structures (annular rings on
pins) on an inner layer wildcard layer, to be copied to all inner
layers, but it is also usefull to work with components with explicit
layer structure, that can only be used with a specific layer structure.
Those may then be distributed as sets together with a technology file,
like in they do for ASICs.  There shall be pads on inner layers too.

The file format may include explicit wildcard layers (positive,
negative), that the GUIs can edit, and which are part of all inner layer
groups.  Footprints can thus still just be (sub-)layouts.


(*) On my boards I had to put tiny vias into the flex pads to verify
connectivity.  Then I had to sed(1) the vias out and the modify the layer
types, twice, to check out the rigid and the flex gerbers.


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