> unless gsch2pcb and pcb really get the prioritization right That's what needs to happen.
> You have a great point about the necessity to go through each and > every footprint in everyone's library and "vetting" them for a > multiple of usability metrics. That's a tall order. Yes, it is. We have to do it anyway, or we end up doing it individually for each board we make. Or we end up making bad boards. > The main problem is that I think right now a lot of people prefer > using the newlibs and many of those are "better" than the same-named > M4. I disagree. The ~geda set is very good, for example. > I think short of some kind of painful vetting process, there has to > be some way to let the user continue (I use that word sparingly > since the only way to force non-M4's seems to be to move/rename > them) to segregate M4's from newlibs. You assume that the newlib footprints are better than the M4 footprints *only because they're newlib*. This is untrue. It sounds like you're prejudiced against M4 footprints, when you should be critical of all footprints equally. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user