On Saturday 25 December 2010 14:59:14 John Doty wrote: > On Dec 25, 2010, at 12:49 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > Yup, we're tyrants because we want to make it easier for 99% of our > > users to get their jobs done. > > But you aren't. A special purpose pcb-centric symbol/footprint library > would be a fine substitute for the eclectic default library. For those > users who would do better with it, it would be "here, install this". But > nobody's done that. Changing the default library piecemeal won't solve the > problem, and will break things.
I absolutely agree. At home I've had to create different libraries to support various methods of assembly. I have one library for surface mounting through-hole components. It lets me hand assemble crude prototypes. The next library was created piece by piece. Whenever I use a new part I create a new footprint. It's designed for hand assembly of manufactured boards. Last is a *professional* library that is intended for board houses using automated assembly techniques. This last technique was taught to me by our layout engineer at work. His primary goal is "design for manufacturing." The complaints I keep hearing about gschem/pcb libraries remind me of his complaints about Orcad. However, he disdains the use of *any* symbol or footprint that he did not create himself. In fact, even when I was using Eagle I had to modify their libraries to support my methods of hand assembly. So, because I use several methods, a single one-size-fits-all library is just not going to work for me. I *could* make use of a library of heavy symbols but I still need the lightweight symbols, too. If I was forced to choose one library then I would like to keep the lightweight stuff. Best regards, Mark Stanley www.WideBandSystems.com _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
