> That is what most CAD systems do. Usually you can't select farther down > than footprint, like "oh, I want one with the solder mask tucked some > more".
Well, real needs would be like: axial resistor: 0.4" vs 0.5" vs 0.6" spacing, TO-220 standing up or laying down, or the 0603[LMN] differences. The last is probably project-wide, but the others depend on the specific layout of that part. > That would require making a new footprint with a new name to it. Ah, but if we're clever with the names, PCB would know how to group alternative footprints that are for the "same" package. > This would be leather seats plus champagne cooler :-) Well, yeah, but it's a goal, not the "next step". I often want to swap gate pins (or memory addr/data pins) in pcb to make the layout work. Putting that functionality in gschem is useless; gschem doesn't know what the layout looks like. > > footprint class (or specific) -> slotting(numbering) -> gschem > > (this is done in pcb) > > That part would IMHO only make sense if or after the broken annotation > and power pin issue gets resolved. That too. > > For SOP footprints, for example, we could "outline around pads" and > > "outline between pads" options, or project-specific alternatives like > > "extra clearance". > > > > Nice, but it doesn't have to go that far. Most people are used to > making special footprints. Like one for Rogers, one for FR4 and > maybe one for <gasp> the super-saver phenolic projects, then keep > using them all the time. All the more reason to have PCB give you a way to select among them for "that package type". _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user