Andy Peters wrote:
On Feb 12, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Dan McMahill wrote:
Andy Peters wrote:
However, when an install of pcb comes with a warning that there are
errors in the m4 libraries, yet doesn't say what footprints have
errors (not to mention: why haven't these errors been fixed?),
leads one to simply not trust the provided libraries at all.
Could you point me to where that warning is? It needs to be updated.
It's in the wiki: http://geda.seul.org/wiki/
geda:pcb_tips#how_do_pcb_s_footprints_work
and I know I've seen it elsewhere.
So this is funny. The 0805 footprint it talks about in the 'newlib'
section has been deleted since it has a non-standard name and has not
been verified against any real standard. The m4 library on the other
hand has 3 tiered IPC conforming in name and footprint footprints for
most of the 2 pin surface mount footprints like 0805's.... I doubt that
whoever wrote that section actually looked at the libraries. In fact, I
just took a look at the newlib footprint talked about there and I
wouldn't use it. The pads have a larger gap and are narrower than any
of the least/nominal/most material recommendations from IPC. Perhaps
this proves my point that there seems to be a misguided trust of newlib
and mistrust of pcblib footprints.
Anyway, I've updated that section of the wiki to more accurately reflect
the current state of affairs.
-Dan
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
