On May 3, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Britton Kerin wrote: >> If you have a reference design that you're trying to modify or > extend >> getting a working set of symbols takes most >> of the time. And reference designs are the open source way. > > You can distribute symbol files with a reference design. No problem. > Still, I'd expect to have to tweak them. > Indeed, design reuse is a strength of the project symbol approach. > Change packages, even parts selection (have symbols fast_npn.sym, > etc, choose part to fit requirements later) by changing project > symbols. Leave the schematics alone. Like changing include files in > software. > > I was thinking more of the situation where you have a published circuit > and want to capture it and build it on > a board. In this case you're probably not starting with gEDA stuff, > and the pain of building the thing on a board > is mostly the (effectively heavy) symbol creation.
Perhaps that's where the pain is, but customizing symbols takes little time, so endure the brief pain and get on with it. You can't avoid it. Even if you have a heavy symbol from somebody else's library, you have to check it carefully, and that's almost as much work as customizing. My heavy symbols won't fit your needs, and vice-versa. This problem exists even in the big $$ commercial EDA tools. Symbol libraries simply don't work the way you wish they would. Too many possibilities... John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
