On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 18:03 -0800, David Griffith wrote: > Wasn't there talk some time ago about fully auditing the stock set of > gschem symbols and pcb footprints? I'm frequently stumbling over > contradictions and I think now would be a good time to chuck out the old > m4 stuff once and for all.
There was talk, but not specifically of an audit. It was more a re-think of what symbols are shipped as part of the main geda-symbols package, and whether we could move some of the existing ones to a -contrib package. There has been no talk about this for PCB, although some care there couldn't hurt. Biggest "-1" vote I can swing on the suggestion to "chuck out the old m4 stuff". There are actually a load of good footprints in that lot, and they make up about 90% of the symbols I actually use. If we had to chuck anything out, we should look towards the shipped "newlib" ones in PCB. IMO, they form a completely incoherent and mostly useless set. M4 is one of many ways we can define a series of footprints to be generated using a script / macro. There is nothing "wrong" with them, and no one forces you to use M4 at run-time any more. -- 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