On Dec 13, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Steve Meier wrote: > > > I am in agreement with the concept of a database conating all of this > and more and then the database application could generate symbols that > gschem could use and it could also be queeried for the additional info > that the drc or netlister could use. > > In general I am in favior of of automated methods since they can get > smarter every year while I am very capable of making the same dumb > mistake over and over. >
I think this was said better than I said it. My point being, on a schematic, I want symbols and logic, I don't really want 'black boxes' of pins if I can help it, and I do not really want to specify footprints. Board layout doesn't care about symbols, just landpatterns, pin outs, and net lists. I like the idea of a master BOM or master design database that farms out symbols to gschem and footprints to PCB. Then, I can change footprints on my BOM and update my board layout, and not need to up- rev a schematic that didn't actually have anything change. I usually do the schematic first to get the logic down on paper, breadboard it and test it, incorporate changes, work up a list of packages and pinouts, export to PCB, and design the board. This work flow works well for me. If we decide that heavy symbols are really needed, it would be nice to have a footprint browser in gschem or something that helps specify when you place the symbol on the schematic that I want this footprint, and here's a preview of what it would look like. Would save a lot of flipping back and forth. -hamster _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
