DJ Delorie wrote:
instantiating each one and verifying that it works?
You don't really know if it works until you fab a board and try to
solder the part to it.
And I'd argue that even that isn't enough to qualify as a thorough
verification. I might do a proto board without silk or soldermask and
everything looks good except that the silk and soldermask for the
footprint is messed up. Or I might be able to hand solder it but not
have it be reliable or able to be reliably assembled in a factory
environment.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can because every little bit
helps. I'm just saying there are many different levels of verification :)
But on the instantiating each one bit, I've verified that at least there
are no m4 syntax errors (there used to be). I have most of whats needed
in place to automatically instantiate all footprints. In fact, we could
probably use some of the gedasymbols.org scripts to have pcb try to load
every single footprint and spit out a list of any which may have pcb
syntax errors in them.
-Dan
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user