I read this thread for about two days and would like to tell you what I do
with the library stuff.
First, I only use my private library which contains only footprints and
parts
I used in a design.
Any footprint has a dedicated reference from a schematic part.
The schematic part has a reference to a database, where the component is
defined.
If I have the same functional part in different cases, I use two different
sch-parts
and so two different footprints.
If there is an error on a part or footprint, this will be corrected in the
redesign of
the first prototype of the board.
On a new design, most of the components are already in this library, the new
created components
have to be checked against datasheets, design rules a.s.o. But this is done
relative quickly and
as more you paid for unusable boards, the better you check it in future.

Georg

>
> At 02:04 PM 7/25/01 +1000, John Haddy wrote:
> >Under no circumstances should the Protel libraries be copied! They
> >are riddled with errors (I'd list them all as "unverified"). For
> >instance, any metric pitch component that's been created with the
> >footprint wizard is likely to be wrong.
>
> First of all, I doubt that the Protel footprints were created
> with the
> footprint wizard! If Protel employees had to use the wizard,
> it would be,
> shall we say, ... improved.
>
> I'd list the Protel footprints as "Protel-supplied." To call them
> "unverified" would be rude, even if, technically, from the user
> perspective, they are unverified.
>
> It is important that they be in the database so that users
> can verify them.
>
> >The biggest hurdle I forsee is the widely differing requirements
> >of any single footprint. For example: a footprint for wave solder
> >is different from that for reflow; the IPC "worst-case" design
> >methodology generates overly conservative footprints; a designer
> >working on high density layouts will want "bleeding edge" land
> >pattern designs, not general purpose ones with excessive silkscreen
> >clearances (for example). So just with these few variations, we're
> >up to at least four variants of every footprint!
>
> Right. But it is a question of standards. The standard to
> which a footprint
> is designed would be coded into the name of the footprint.
>
> The library would be indexed to manufacturer part numbers. (Schematic
> libraries likewise). I see no other way to cleanly organize
> the parts.
> Obviously, many different MFR part numbers will point to the
> same symbol.
>
> >Much as I applaud the sentiment, I can't see a single library ever
> >providing a single source set of footprints.
>
> For some of us, the user library (actually it will be a library of
> libraries) will be sufficient for most uses. There will
> always be a need
> for users to make new footprints or to modify existing ones.
>
> [...]
>
> >We're going to need much more sophisticated design rules before I'd
> >consider using anybody else's designs (so that I can check, for
> >example, paste aperture ratios given a specified screen thickness)
>
> I'd assume that the libraries would not normally contain paste mask
> information.
>
> The libraries will be as good as the rules used to design
> them, and the
> rules will be as good as we make them.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Abdulrahman Lomax
> P.O. Box 690
> El Verano, CA 95433
>
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*                      - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to