> > Examples > > are the next to unusable default library of geda > > As has been discussed many times, this cannot be fixed, since there is no > narrow, common use case for gEDA. Even the big $$ tools can't get this > right, so how can we? A narrowly targeted, inflexible tool like Eagle can > maybe, kind of, but that's not gEDA.
Actually I think gEDA is not too bad for components/symbols really. What the default library lacks, gedsymbols often has. With a little bit more promotion of gedasymbols I think people wouldn't have such an issue. In terms of the usability of the default symbols - I just treat them as a starting point. It is unlikely anyone will have done a symbol exactly to my preference, and even if they have I like to add a whole bunch of extra attributes. The default library and gedasymbols remove a lot of the heavy lifting. A full symbol/footprint library is something that I expect to build for myself - I am not going to be happy unless I have closely checked each symbol. I am very thankful for being able to base my work from what others have done - but I am not planning on being in the position of having a dead pcb because I didn't check a 3rd party footprint properly. As far as the guile/scheme gnetlist backend is concerned... I did manage to modify one of the BOM backends to pull some extra attributes I add to my symbols. My first look at guile/scheme hurt my head - too many brackets. But after the initial shock it wasn't too bad.
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
