On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Mark Rages <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Larry Doolittle > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Disorganized and questionable quality component libraries. > > This has been discussed to death, but without any concrete > > results. > > > > - Larry > > > > Can we just use luciani.org footprints and deprecate the current ones? > They are far better than the included footprints. The included ones > are terrible (as in, I've had to throw away boards because they were > unusable). It is not very user-friendly to ship broken footprints, > then when users complain, blame them for not double-checking all the > footprints and/or making their own library. > It is good to hear that you have found by library useful. Thank you. It is not fair to group *all* of the user contributed libraries together. Some work some may not work but this is true for commercial and non-commercial EDA packages. I have yet to see a CAD group be able to use any EDA tool without some sort of library review. I agree that some symbols (including mine) may be completely broken but others may be broken for your process requirements while meeting the process requirements of others. I believe there are a group of footprints shipped with PCB that were generated to IPC-7351. IPC-7351 specifies three process capabilities. For these symbols choosing the wrong one could result in a throw-away board. You should always check that a footprint meets your process requirements and matches your component specifications. I am hoping that others double-check my footprints before I make throw-away boards ;-) (* jcl *) -- http://www.luciani.org
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
