Peter Clifton wrote: > 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".
can you be more specific? There are actually quite a lot of decent footprints in there. For example all of the 2 pin passives in surface mount should be well represented and conform to IPC recommendations. As far as I know all of the *QFN, SOIC, *QFP, *SOP, footprints are fine as well. This makes up a pretty large collection of footprints. I think the bigger problem is hooking the correct gschem symbol to the correct pcb footprint and making sure the pinouts match. > > 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. > totally agreed. In fact I'll probably do that before too long. > 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. > Right, and the footprints generated via m4 are the ones that have been tested the most. -Dan _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user