DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> writes: >> Layers in the footprint have to be mapped according to the principle >> of least surprise. > > Last we talked of this, I mentioned symbolic layer tags vs physical > layer tags. So footprints would have top/inner/bottom layers, boards > would have 1(top)/2/3/4(bottom) layers.
How about 1(top),2(inner),3(top2),4(bot2),5(inner),6(bottom)? I.e., nothing special about (top) and (bottom), except that canonical footprint libraries should define (top)(inner)(bottom) layers. But I could define special footprints for edge connectors on rigid-flex boards, that have their pads on the flex layers (top2)(bot2), and no (top)(inner)(bottom) layers. What I'd really need is 1(top),2(inner),3(inner,top2),4(inner,bot2),5(inner),6(bottom)? to use standard footprints on the rigid part, but I guess, that's then up to my special library to fix. > Yes, mapping everything is the tricky part. Do it very general, then it's less tricky. Right, John? :-) -- Stephan _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user