Stuart Brorson wrote:
This has been the case everyplace I've been, with some places being
better at maintaining the libraries than others. That is, it is
always my job -- my responsibility -- to check my designs -- symbols,
footprints, and everything else. And I don't think my
experience is unique. In any event, the engineer's life is full of
check & recheck of designs. It's an integral part of the job.
This works because there's a huge database mapping the symbols,
footprints, and part numbers to each other. We don't have that.
True. But my point is this: Maintaining a real parts library is a
full time job. And it's not fun -- it's drudgery. Since I expect to
get paid to do drudge work, I don't think we should make any promise
that gEDA's parts library is anything more than a shell, or a large
collection of examples which might be useful to another user. That
is to say: Our current implementation places the entire burden of
maintaining the parts library on the user, and keeps it away from us
developers who do this as an unpaid hobby. I view this as "tough
love" for our users.
gedasymbols.org is starting to be good at diverting library related whining away
from developers toward symbol publishers.
That's good, I think.
John G
_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
