Am Dienstag, den 31.07.2007, 06:51 -0400 schrieb Stuart Brorson: > > Actually I haven't touched the footprint doc in over 2 1/2 years, and > a lot of the info is therefore likely outdated. >
I think that most contents of the footprint doc is up to date, and it is very helpful for understanding footprints and for creating footprints with a text editor or a script. > I've never been a fan of the PCB manual since it is over 100 pages of > hard to read verbiage with no screenshots (just IMO). I read the whole pcb manual some weeks ago. It was no fun, some parts I have not really understood, but I have learned a lot. > Newbies > probably find it intimidating, particularly if all they want to do is > draw a footprint. However, it is authoritative, and will always be > up-to-date since it is autogenerated. Indeed pcb manual is not useful for beginners. > > Therefore, I wonder if I should withdraw the footprint doc and > point to the File Format section of the on-line PCB manual? No. I think PCB manual can not replace the footprint doc. Maybe inclusion of (a modified?) footprint doc in PCD manual is possible? I think missing, unclear, confusing or verbose documentation is a heavy burden of gEDA/gaf/pcb. I myself can not contribute much to a better documentation currently, because I am still learning using gEDA, and writing good english is not easy for me. (As a small contribution to gEDA, I have edited the german wikipedia entry about gEDA some weeks ago.) Best regards Stefan Salewski _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user