Kai-Martin Knaak k...@lilalaser.de writes:
Stephan Boettcher wrote:
My colleagues use eagle. I review their gerbers with gerbv. They
envy my hierachical schematics and scripting fu,
Funny. I got the impression, the scripting abilities of
Vanessa Ezekowitz vanessaezekow...@gmail.com writes:
The TO92 footprint included with PCB does not work with the schematic
importer therein. Try to reference it and the importer complains
about missing pins, because it uses numbered pins instead of the B-C-E
lettering used in gschem's
The TO92 package has well define pin numbers. The mapping from
transistor pins to footprint pins should happen in the schematic.
Worse, the mapping from EBC to 123 is *different* for different
transistors using the TO-92 case.
Compare 2N3904 - E-B-C
2SC2631 - E-C-B
DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com writes:
The TO92 package has well define pin numbers. The mapping from
transistor pins to footprint pins should happen in the schematic.
Worse, the mapping from EBC to 123 is *different* for different
transistors using the TO-92 case.
Compare 2N3904 - E-B-C
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:19:05PM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 14:26 +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
In the meantime, I have a 100% reproducible bug with the following
backtrace:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
r_delete_entry (rtree=0x0,
On Fri, 20 May 2011 08:31:46 +0200
Stephan Boettcher boettc...@physik.uni-kiel.de wrote:
Vanessa Ezekowitz vanessaezekow...@gmail.com writes:
The TO92 footprint included with PCB does not work with the schematic
importer therein. Try to reference it and the importer complains
about
Colin D Bennett wrote:
Not to get into the whole light/heavy symbol debate
Maybe, it is time to look at this issue again. When I first read geda
documentation, there were already references that this had been discussed
ad nauseam. As a result, the default lib was the way it was and is. This
Perhaps, and as DJ says the actual mapping varies from one
transistor type to another. However, this particular footprint
simply doesn't work for any Gschem-PCB use case, hence my
replacement.
I think, if we were to accept such a change, what we'd need is a range
of TO92 packages with all
DJ Delorie wrote:
what we'd need is a range
of TO92 packages with all the permutations of EBC and SGD, like
TO92_EBC.fp, TO92_ECB.fp, TO92_SDG.fp,
This is, what I ended up with, after I had my first TO92 transistor
disaster. In my not so private library on gedasymbols.org there are
both:
[Subject changed to start new thread]
When I first read geda documentation, there were already references
that this had been discussed ad nauseam.
Sigh, yes. It's not an easy problem to solve, and I would consider
any solution a major effort because it touches everything from
gschem to pcb
On Fri, 20 May 2011 21:02:51 +0200
Kai-Martin Knaak kn...@iqo.uni-hannover.de wrote:
Hi.
A few minutes ago, I fetched the latest PCB sources from git and
recompiled. Surprise: The resulting binary includes translucent tracks and
polygons! This is both, beautiful and very useful. See the
why do you have a through hole ic
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak
kn...@iqo.uni-hannover.de wrote:
Hi.
A few minutes ago, I fetched the latest PCB sources from git and recompiled.
Surprise: The resulting binary includes translucent tracks and polygons!
This is both,
Yea!! This is fantastic!
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak
kn...@iqo.uni-hannover.de wrote:
Hi.
A few minutes ago, I fetched the latest PCB sources from git and recompiled.
Surprise: The resulting binary includes translucent tracks and polygons!
This is both, beautiful and
On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:01:59 -0400
DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote:
[Subject changed to start new thread]
[...]
When I first read geda documentation, there were already references
that this had been discussed ad nauseam.
If the default lib is to be changed now, then there should be
Oh boy am I glad y'all are having this conversation, and I hope you
don't mind some comments from the peanut gallery.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM, DJ Delorie [1]d...@delorie.com wrote:
[Subject changed to start new thread]
When I first read geda documentation, there were
I say go with this - because users already have to modify nearly all
the symbols they use in a schematic when using the existing library.
This way, most of the symbols will have default footprints and other
attributes that will do just fine.
Ok, then how do we generate the thousands, if not
And consider that, no matter how heavy a symbol is, you can always
make it heavier. Let's say we ship a symbol for a 4.7k 0603
resistor.
Does it include manufacter's part numbers? Vendor name? Tolerance?
These are additional data the user could add. Where does it come
I would love an easier way to generate footprints.
Now that we're pre-parsing all the M4 footprints anyway, perhaps we
could allow for a range of scripting options in the Makefiles that
generate the library? There have been a few footprint-specific
languages developed over the years.
In all
yamazakir2 wrote:
why do you have a through hole ic
These are TDA2030 that drive the peltier -- These are reliable, powerful
and and cheap. To tap their power, they need to be screwed to a sizable cooler.
15 W heat cannot be easily dissipated into a copper polygon plane.
---)kaimartin(---
I'm have no a lot of expirience in PCB creation, so may be I don't know
something, but I have following suggestions:
Just now my workflow is the next:
1. I draw scheme in gschem.
2. I run gsch2pcb and look for errors like this:
WARNING: C5 has no footprint attribute so won't be
On 20/05/11 17:01, DJ Delorie wrote:
* Standard library is light, users heavyify them (we need a better
verb for that ;) into a project-specific (or even site-global) heavy
symbol library.
Personally, I'd say that this is a sensible way to go.
I'd then suggest having an extra set of
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:01:59PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
My own proposal (posted in the past) is here:
http://www.delorie.com/pcb/component-dbs.html
I like this idea a lot. Allowing pcb and gschem to use different
(multiple) databases with different backends gives us a lot of
It would let us ship, say, a sqlite database with a bunch
or OOo spreadsheet, or CSV text file, or even a web server CGI.
See also: http://www.gedasymbols.org/csv.html
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak
kn...@iqo.uni-hannover.de wrote:
Colin D Bennett wrote:
Not to get into the whole light/heavy symbol debate
Maybe, it is time to look at this issue again. When I first read geda
documentation, there were already references that this had been
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:14 PM, DJ Delorie [1]d...@delorie.com wrote:
Yes users must be able to add metadata, ie: company internal part
numbers, document numbers, etc.
Do they add meta-data to the symbol, the footprint, or store it
elsewhere?
Well, as an example, I
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Colin D Bennett [1]co...@gibibit.com
wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2011 14:02:58 -0400
Vanessa Ezekowitz [2]vanessaezekow...@gmail.com wrote:
The discussion about reinventing the wheel reminded me:
The TO92 footprint included with PCB does not work
Chris Malton wrote:
On 20/05/11 17:01, DJ Delorie wrote:
* Standard library is light, users heavyify them (we need a better
verb for that ;) into a project-specific (or even site-global) heavy
symbol library.
Personally, I'd say that this is a sensible way to go.
This is the way it is
On Fri, 20 May 2011 16:54:20 -0400
DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote:
I say go with this - because users already have to modify nearly all
the symbols they use in a schematic when using the existing library.
This way, most of the symbols will have default footprints and other
attributes
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:09 PM, DJ Delorie [1]d...@delorie.com wrote:
I would love an easier way to generate footprints.
Now that we're pre-parsing all the M4 footprints anyway, perhaps we
could allow for a range of scripting options in the Makefiles that
generate the
Ales Hvezda wrote:
The symbols in the current default lib fail for both.
Why don't you use gedasymbols.org to show us how you would fix the
current gEDA/gaf shipped symbol library.
In a way, I already do ;-) See my section at gedasymbols.org.
Of course, the actual choice of components
It would be great if we also had an easier way to contribute symbols
back (perhaps with just a mouse click or two).
The only limit I put on gedasymbols is accountability. I want to make
sure that if a symbol or footprint is up there, you know who's
responsible for it. Solutions which meet
Couldn't you consider maintaining some backwards-compatibility by
having the metadata file simply contain references to the symbol
files (plus other garbage, spice, kitchen sinks, etc), and footprint
files? That should only require a minimal effort on the part of
gSchem to read the new
Metadata can be a parallel task.
In gschem you pick your resistor.
You have two buttons, place lite, place heavy. Place heavy brings up a second
wizard to populate the heavy symbol, probably from your database.
Then place your symbol.
In pcb, when you import a schematic.
Any parts
Ok, then how do we generate the thousands, if not millions, of symbols
we'll need?
I've been thinking about that, and to be blunt, I have no frickin'
clue. ;-)
Maybe some clever scripting against a set of generic parts
(similar to what I did with those footprints I just submitted).
I'm hoping for a better way for them to do the work or even, machine
does most of the work Teach them to fish and all that.
Teach them to fish, yes, but make them figure out how to make a
fishing pole from scratch? *I* might like that, but most users
wouldn't.
Hence the it should be easy
In a way, I already do ;-) See my section at gedasymbols.org.
Feel free to post a tarball or other installer, so that the users can
replace geda's library with yours. John Luciani did that on his site,
you can do it on gedasymbols if you want. Make it a copy of the
library you actually use,
On Fri, 20 May 2011 22:37:58 -0400
DJ Delorie d...@delorie.com wrote:
Ok, then how do we generate the thousands, if not millions, of symbols
we'll need?
I've been thinking about that, and to be blunt, I have no frickin'
clue. ;-)
Maybe some clever scripting against a set of
However, we could collect stats
about things downloaded from, say, gedasymbols. Perhaps we could have
a small number of starter libraries on gedasymbols, and the geda
installer prompts you to pick one to download. We track how many
downloads of each, and use that to decide which to
Kai-Martin Knaak,
[snip]
No size fits all. That does not preclude improvement over the current
situation.
DJ and I are asking you to improve the current situation by creating,
distributing, and maintaining a better default symbol library than the
one that is currently shipped with gEDA/gaf.
39 matches
Mail list logo
