John Doty wrote:
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:38 AM, kai-martin knaak wrote:
Everybody has their own working style: the library cannot
possibly cover everybody's.
True. However it does not preclude the existence of a library
that reasonably matches the needs of a large group of users.
The other EDA packages I had the chance to work with, did a
much better job at the library front. You could get quite far
with their default library. My eagle oriented colleagues hardly
dive into the symbol and/or footprint creation business.
And they can't go all the places gEDA can go.
There is nothing whatever preventing somebody from constructing a symbol
library that matches *their* notion of a reasonable gEDA flow. Publish on
gedasymbols.
I can't stand the reiteration of this stupid argument any longer.
Whoever offered me a page on gedasymbols, please do so now.
I'll provide my symbols and footprints with this features:
* symbols are smaller than the standard library
* all symbols and footprints are guaranteed to conform to IPC-7351B by
definition
with some shortcut-names as I like them as links
* where IPC-7351 doesn't define behaviour there is an auxiliarry
document describing what is done
Download-count will decide, who is right.
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user