On Sep 10, 2007, at 7:10 PM, Greg Cunningham wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 20:33 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
However, the pdf barfs. Is there a wrap error in your post, or is
$ a construct I'm not familiar with?
When using pattern rules (wildcards) in Makefiles, there are some
variables you
FWIW, there's a good O'Reilly book about creating and using Makefiles:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/make3/index.html
You can also just google for make, or refer to the make documentation,
http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/.
___
geda-user
That pinout is correct for a LM7912 TO-220.
You are thinking of the LM7812 positive voltage regulator.
Here's the correct pinout for both positive and negative regulators,
with link to data sheets:
Pinout for LM7812
1. Input
2. Ground
3. Output
On 9/11/07, gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That pinout is correct for a LM7912 TO-220.
You are thinking of the LM7812 positive voltage regulator.
Here's the correct pinout for both positive and negative regulators,
with link to data sheets:
Pinout for LM7812
1. Input
2. Ground
3.
how can the library get corrected, so that nobody runs into trouble? div
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Hi carzrgr8,
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 18:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can the library get corrected, so that nobody runs into trouble?
Wait till one of the developers correct it and puts it to the repo ;-).
If someone thinks the attached symbol is ok, I'm pushing it to the repo.
If someone thinks the attached symbol is ok, I'm pushing it to the repo.
How do you know that this pinout is correct? What other packages does
an lm7912 come in other than TO-220? There isn't a footprint=
attribute in the original symbol. My concern is breaking existing
user schematics.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 07:17:08AM -0400, John Luciani wrote:
Pinout for LM7812
1. Input
2. Ground
3. Output
http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/product.do?id=MC7812
Only for the TO92, right? The TO220 doesn't match. I have different
symbols for the two for 7805.
--
Ben Jackson
On 9/11/07, Ales Hvezda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If someone thinks the attached symbol is ok, I'm pushing it to the repo.
How do you know that this pinout is correct? What other packages does
an lm7912 come in other than TO-220? There isn't a footprint=
attribute in the original
andrewm wrote:
I have same numbered the pins on the switch as they
are electrically connected inside. I often use the
pins on those switches as jumpers to get wires out
of tight spots and thought that giving them the same
number would allow the nets to look connected.
Steven
On Sep 11, 2007, at 2:49 PM, andrewm wrote:
Steve,
Sure I can do a bug/feature request on this (after I
read up how too).
Just want to make sure that it is something wrong or
something people want.
Should the two pins same-named be treated as a single
entity so they can be used like a
Steven Michalske wrote:
On Sep 11, 2007, at 2:49 PM, andrewm wrote:
Steve,
Sure I can do a bug/feature request on this (after I
read up how too).
Just want to make sure that it is something wrong or
something people want.
Should the two pins same-named be treated as a single
entity so
First, this is debate mode not argument mode..
Sorry, bad example
At DC they are the same :-P
2GHz not so much.. I want my ground plane!
DB9 mounting tabs, that's better, I saw a SMA connector in my head
as common enough for people to relate to with out firing up some
drawing
Charles hasn't made Fink packages for 1.2.0 yet, so I did a source
install, using the tarballs and the toplevel makefile. There are only
a few problems.
1. Guile
Fink installs different versions of guile under different names. I
guess this is because of the lack of either backward or
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 13:59 -0400, Ales Hvezda wrote:
If someone thinks the attached symbol is ok, I'm pushing it to the repo.
How do you know that this pinout is correct? What other packages does
an lm7912 come in other than TO-220? There isn't a footprint=
attribute in the original
15 matches
Mail list logo
