Rule 6.7 says that no footprint should be duplicated to match a different pin ordering. In the case of non-isolated mounting tabs, if they are always connected to the middle pin, then there would be no different pin orders.
That being said, I think having symbols with two collector pins is also a sensible solution. On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 2:39 PM, nnn <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that tab shouldn't be numbered the same as middle pin. According > to rule 6.7 the tab should be considered in schematic symbol. If user want > to connect tab of TO-220 he should use schematic symbol of transistor with > two collector pins. If some IC has many ground pins, every one has a number > and exists in schematic symbol. The same simple approach can be applied to > eg TO220. > > > W dniu 10.01.2015 o 20:16, Carl Poirier pisze: > > Are any of you aware if packages with a non-isolated mounting tab > connected to any other pad than the middle one exist? > > If they don't, then I would opt for one footprint with the tab connected > and one footprint with the tab unconnected. > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Carl Poirier <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The question of pin names had been solved a while ago already. It was >> agreed that the symbols would take care of pin swaps. >> >> As for the tab, I wished to avoid the board-level edit of the >> footprint, but it's a good compromise to avoid many library variants. >> >> Michal Salaban (See other email) suggests another solution, which >> consists of attributing pin number 4 to the tab in the schematic symbol, >> and pad number four to the tab in the footprint. Here, the user alse has to >> manually assign a net to the pad, but in the schematic. Any comments on >> that one? >> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Vesa Solonen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 31/12/14, 04:01, Carl Poirier kirjoitti: >>> > Vesa, >>> > >>> > If I understand correctly, you say the oyvind-aabling library is a good >>> > example of having multiple variants of the same housing, which you >>> don't >>> > like. Right? >>> >>> Hi Carl, >>> >>> Quite the opposite, if I understand correctly ;) >>> With multiple variants depending on a device I meant e.g. TO-220_GDS and >>> TO-220_BCE, which I don't like. I see why pin names are nice on the PCB, >>> but they don't belong to the standardised housing library. They should >>> be pulled from the schematic symbol the standard housing is linked to. >>> This should be quite easy to add in to the pcbnew pin rendering, >>> possibly with an option to turn it on part by part basis. >>> >>> In the oyvind-aabling's library variants are only mechanical variants, >>> vertical, horizontal with tab to PCB and horizontal with tab away from >>> PCB. Everything parametrically generated including 3-D and >>> not_too_long_names. >>> >>> -Vesa >>> >>> >> > > > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-lib-committers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-lib-committers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-lib-committers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-lib-committers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
