John Luciani wrote: > On 9/1/07, andrewm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I am presently drawing up footprints for my stock components. >> >> I have read the naming conventions for the footprints and have >> done some searches but can't find an answer to this query. >> >> I have for many components two different foot prints. I would >> like to know if there is a convention to naming the multiples. >> >> I don't mean I have a device that comes in a DIP40 and also >> comes in a TQFP44. I mean I wish to have two version of a >> MSSOP28W (0.65mm 28 lead 5.3mm wide package) >> footprint. >> >> I would like one version of the footprint following the >> manufacturer approved pin width/length. I would also like >> another version with longer pins that I use in prototype >> boards that I will hand solder. >> > > If you followed a manufacturer's specification I would use a suffix > that calls out the specific manufacturer and package > designation (e.g. "__TI_DRC_Package") > > IPC-7351 calls out an environment use suffix which you could probably use > for designating larger prototype pads. The "Most Material" condition > may work for > your prototype fooprints and the "Nominal Material" for a production process. > > M ... Most Material > N ... Nominal Material > L ... Least Material > > I am thinking of adding the suffixes "MM", "NM", "LM" to my naming convention > to correspond to the IPC-7351 material conditions. > > (* jcl *) > >
Thanks John, However the extra meat I put on some pads for prototype soldering is well in excess of the IPC-7351 most material. I think I will just pop a suffix on the back of them for my own use and I shall never release the footprints to not confuse others. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
