On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 22:41 +0000, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:57:56 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote: > > >> On the subject of pinnumber, what would a better approach be? Should I > >> use values of 1, 2 and 3? Or would it be smarter to use values of E, B > >> and C for my transistor symbol? > > > > You can do either, so long as the pin names in PCB match the pinnumber > > in gschem. pinnumber also works with letters - it just means that you'd > > be making specific PCB footprints for all the TO92 pinout variants you > > want to use. > > You might want to take a look at my TO92 footprints in gedasymbols.org > They were made to fit FETs (TO92_GDS.fp) or ordinary transistors: > http://www.gedasymbols.org/user/kai_martin_knaak/footprints/generic/TO92_ECB.fp > http://www.gedasymbols.org/user/kai_martin_knaak/footprints/generic/TO92_GDS.fp
Bug report: The graphic for the GDS variant still shows ECB against it. There is an M4 macro which will generate TO92 footprints, "footprint=TO92" should work, assuming you have M4 footprints installed and working (default). TO92 doesn't list in the library browser though - this is basically a bug. The M4 footprint uses staggered through holes (triangle configuration) rather than a straight line, but does unfortunately put silk on top of the pads. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user