[ Ales here, I'm reposting this since majordomo didn't recognize the e-mail as being subscribed to the geda-dev/geda-user mailinglist. ]
-- Cut here -- Delivery-Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:46:14 -0500 From: Rick Munden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I agree entirely with Magnus. I too have looked at using gEDA within my company but the lack of a robust library structure made it unsuitable. Rick Munden Magnus Danielson wrote: > From: "Timmerman, LJH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: gEDA: Component Packages and PCB Land Pattern - naming Conven > tions > Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:49:39 +0100 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Hi Steve, >> >>IMHO the gschem symbol mechanism lacks a few features. >> >>A couple of them are listed in your mail below, and some are even more >>fundamental as I see them. >> >>For instance: >> >>[Fundamental] A lot of [CMOS, TTL] components are available in SMD and in >>through-hole packages --> their pin nummbering is not allways identical. >>It's not practical to have two or more sets of symbols. This should be >>solved at the attribute level (pins) if possible, for their graphical >>representation is identical. > > > The actual problem is that too much is tied to "symbol". It doesn't scale well > into the modern world. > > >>[Fundamental] The visible name of the package should be implemented as an >>attribute, that is [7400, 74S00, 74LS00, ...]. > > > You need to indicate Speedgrade, Temperature-range, Package for most things. > There is a number of specialized things like Pb-free, avionics/space approval > etc. etc. > > Once you actually have that, you need to get the ACTUAL ordering number, which > differs from different vendors. Also, alternative stuffing both in family and > from different vendors comes into play. > > The actual ordering number is even more complex, since it will depend on which > delivery form you buy a whole bunch of these... tape, tablett or whatever. > > Depending on how large design one is making, the work-flow becomes quite > different. For a larger design, choosing all the details at a singular moment > in time becomes hard, and recycling that process becomes more and more > expensive the larger design there is. > > Moving away from that kind of hard-select and rather select function, device, > speedgrade/package/component and finaly delivery form is a better way to do > it. > > Choosing a "symbol" is only representing the first step. Pin-numbers come > further down the line. > > But then, I've been down this road before with no succsess. I've been stating > this many times here. I can't see a chance of gEDA being used as a tool in my > company ever as a result, since it will not match our most basic needs. I am > sure many will enjoy it for other projects thought, but if you want to aim for > prime-time you need to address the issues we are facing. > > Cheers, > Magnus
