Last time I saw this error it was because when I saved the file, all
text fields were quoted.
Ie - instead of> version\t01
it read> "version"\t01
or something along those lines.
I fixed with vim...
:1,$s/\"//g
Geoff
___
geda-user
Not sure the pitch you require but I have a couple
of SON's at
http://www.luciani.org/geda/pcb/pcb-footprint-list.html
(* jcl *)
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
g"
>
> In the template, I had changed the example version number to "20110319
> 1", following the format of the template version number. I verified
> that the CSV file contains a version line. Has anyone out there found
> a solution to this problem?
I'm using a mosfet with a TDSON-8 footprint. I looked on
[1]gedasymbols.org and couldn't find anything. I also can't find
anything in PCB. Does anyone have this or can someone direct me? I'd
rather not have to make one. Also if a symbol would be great too.
Thanks
References
Hello, I am trying to fill out the Tragesym template for an
ATmega128RFA1, but the script gives me an error when I pass it the CSV
file (renamed to a ".sch" file):
"error: version attribut missing"
In the template, I had changed the example version number to "2
On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:25 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Inkscape gives you complete flexibility, and it's absolutely useless
> as a pcb layout tool.
Indeed. So please remember that the job of a layout tool is to describe the
*geometry* of *physical* objects. It's *not* just a graphical tool, nor shoul
On Mar 19, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 13:14 -0700, Steven Michalske wrote:
>
>>> Scroll wheel: rotate selection or element under mouse pointer
>>> If nothing is selected and mouse pointer is over unpopulated area
>>> or SHIFT modifier is used: Zoom in/o
On Mar 19, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
> Oh my! You can draw The plating on the insulator layer. Thus making the
> plating a real object of conductor This is more 3d cad leaking through.
DJ once made the observation that pcb's basic problem is the lack of a proper
layer stac
On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 13:14 -0700, Steven Michalske wrote:
> > Scroll wheel: rotate selection or element under mouse pointer
> > If nothing is selected and mouse pointer is over unpopulated area
> > or SHIFT modifier is used: Zoom in/out
> >
> Track pad users may want scroll to be scrolling
On Mar 18, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 19:17 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> shift-leftclick on object
>>
>> Don't forget about select-region, select-touching,
>> select-touching-line, etc.
>>
>
> I guess that is not too common in schematics?
>
> Here is
On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:33 PM, John Doty wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
>
>> This is what bothers me about a hole layer, un plated vs plated, the holes
>> do not define electrical contact, the plating does.
>>
>> Or, rivits, or the soldered wires on hand
On Mar 19, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Martin Kupec wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:14:54AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
>>
>>> If layers types would be defined by attributes, someone would be able to
>>> declare one layer both as conductive and
On Mar 19, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
> This is what bothers me about a hole layer, un plated vs plated, the holes
> do not define electrical contact, the plating does.
>
> Or, rivits, or the soldered wires on hand assembled multilayer boards.
>
> Well with silver ink circuit
On Mar 19, 2011, at 8:13 AM, John Doty wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:57 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:
>
>> BTW., there were electronic circuitries before PCBs were invented and the
>> future of electronics manufacturing is most likely something
>> three-dimensional, arbitrarily shaped.
>
This message makes me think that COW should remember what master it was copied
from and an edited flag.
On Mar 18, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Stephan Boettcher
wrote:
> DJ Delorie writes:
>
Except gerbers have special cases for thermals and pads, for example.
>>>
>>> So there need to be att
On Mar 18, 2011, at 4:39 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> It is the exporter's job to understand drilling. For geometry
>> capture, all you need to know is the shape. Modules with no "need to
>> know" should not know.
>
> The autorouter needs to know not to run traces across unplated
> holes...
On Mar 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> Still, I do not see a need for outline layers anywhere, except as an
>> attribute on a graphical layer that tells an exporter where to stop
>> drawing.
>
> Hmmm... so you think PCB should let the user place an element in a
> physically im
On Mar 18, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Stephan Boettcher
wrote:
> DJ Delorie writes:
>
I expect the plugin mechanism to be the way to write *all* the core
bits, though.
>>>
>>> The more important it is, that what is below the plugin mechanism is as
>>> general as necessary, and since th
On Mar 18, 2011, at 4:02 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>>> Except gerbers have special cases for thermals and pads, for example.
>>
>> So there need to be attributes on shapes.
>
> No, the exporters really need to have access to the whole collection
> of shapes that means "pin" so they can do p
On Mar 18, 2011, at 3:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>>> I expect the plugin mechanism to be the way to write *all* the core
>>> bits, though.
>>
>> The more important it is, that what is below the plugin mechanism is as
>> general as necessary, and since that is difficult to judge up front:
On Mar 18, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Stephan Boettcher
wrote:
> DJ Delorie writes:
>
>>> ... I think the tool we have is pretty good already. Very good. Thanks!
>>
>> The tool we have already is nearly impossible to maintain, though.
>>
>>> Please do not expect that users write plugins. The t
On Mar 18, 2011, at 3:07 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> That's the kind of "top down" design that produces a tool that meets
>> today's requirements in the minimum amount of time, but produces an
>> inflexible tool limited to those requirements.
>
> And your kind of bottom-up design never gets
On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:19 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> I don't want to end up with the current state that some 'specialy
>> named' layers receive special treatment.
>
> From a practical standpoint, I think it makes sense to have a fast way
> to scan for layers of some high-level type, as well
On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Martin Kupec wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:56:27AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Martin Kupec wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:14:54AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
>>
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:56:27AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Martin Kupec wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:14:54AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
> >>
> >>> If layers types would be defined by attributes,
On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Martin Kupec wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:14:54AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
>>
>>> If layers types would be defined by attributes, someone would be able to
>>> declare one layer both as conductive and as s
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
> Martin Kupec writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:00:04PM +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
> >> Martin Kupec writes:
> >> > That is a bit complicated. I need a clean definition of layer types, so
> >> > one can pick the righ
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:14:54AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
>
> > If layers types would be defined by attributes, someone would be able to
> > declare one layer both as conductive and as silk for example. That could
> > cause me a nighmares. Tha
On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Martin Kupec wrote:
> If layers types would be defined by attributes, someone would be able to
> declare one layer both as conductive and as silk for example. That could
> cause me a nighmares. That is why I insist on 'typed' layers, not
> 'tagged' layer.
No. The nig
John Doty writes:
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:57 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:
>
>> BTW., there were electronic circuitries before PCBs were invented and
>> the future of electronics manufacturing is most likely something
>> three-dimensional, arbitrarily shaped.
>
> Yes. I'm now working with two groups t
Martin Kupec writes:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:00:04PM +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
>> Martin Kupec writes:
>> > That is a bit complicated. I need a clean definition of layer types, so
>> > one can pick the right layer when needed. But some attributes in
>> > addition to layer type are pos
On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:57 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:
> BTW., there were electronic circuitries before PCBs were invented and the
> future of electronics manufacturing is most likely something
> three-dimensional, arbitrarily shaped.
Yes. I'm now working with two groups that are fabricating parts
Stephan Boettcher writes:
>> Now consider a differential pair. It's a line but you *don't* move
>> the *line* endpoints, you move the *pair* control points.
>
> That is a hard one. You could define a composit of type "morphable" The
> endpoints of shapes inside such a composite become pointable
Am 19.03.2011 um 02:29 schrieb John Doty:
... comparison to the C language snipped ...
Proper bottom-up design *never* results in "impossible-to-meet
requirements" because it starts from capabilities.
Nice description, John.
What can a layered description of tame plane geometries (no
f
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
> I will now have a look at that. But what do you call majority? The
> most vocal people here, like John and myself did not offer to do any
> coding, yet. In the end, those that code (DJ, you ?) decide.
I am the one who is willin
Martin Kupec writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I appreciate the discussion.
So do I. It started out a bit of a mess, because we were talking about
different things, but in the end I think there was not left much
disagreement about fundamental issues.
> There we nearly no objections to my layer concept, ju
36 matches
Mail list logo
