Brad, Mike

my understanding of the question is that there are more than four footprints that 
could be used for a component. Let's say a capacitor. There are four footprint fields 
in the sch component library and there couldb be 53 different footprints one uses for 
capacitors. There is obviously not enough space for all of them to be defined in the 
sch library component.

Let's say a cap is associated with one of the footprints apart from those four and the 
sch component is changed in a library and then you update component from the library, 
what happens? In my system, the footprint info is preserved, which is what I prefer. 
If I want to change the footprint info then the component's footprint field in the sch 
will produce an updated list, according to updated library component, to choose from. 
I would not like to have to change manually all the different capacitors if the 
library component was changed. 

This is valid for generic components, such as cap. The story is different if you have 
a sch library component for every capacitor you use. It might be of some benefit if 
your updated sch library footprint fields are reflected in the schematic. For me this 
still would not be a good idea. I could use a reflow component on the top and a wave 
footprint on the bottom and once that is set, all changes required I would do 
manually, rather then having update function mess up with my board.

Then again, if the 'update from library' function is modified, so you have control 
over what is updated in the schematic, e.g. only selected components are updated, it 
could be useful, especially on large boards.

It all comes down to having a choice to do what you think is appropriate.

In my opinion, what P99SE does is not a bug. It does what it is supposed to do and I 
am quite happy with what it does. That we might want something else or more is not 
sufficient to call it a bug. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Velander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 December 2002 8:41 AM
To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
Subject: Re: [PEDA] 10 best options I want

        I am not sure that your explanation is the same as the problem I
thought was being described. I couldn't follow your example completely
because you didn't state which footprint was the active/current footprint
after you did the update. Sounds like you thought it was a bug just listing
the two footprints. This also similarly goes back to the "sticky" symbol
issues recently discussed on the DXP list. Sticky or non-sticky, differing
opinions existed.

        The problem that I thought was described as occurring when updating
PCB. Just went back and re-read Bob's original message and realize that I
was confused by his mention of footprint and "leave it on the board".

        I know for my own opinion, if I update symbols from the library I
expect to have brand new virgin symbol in my schematic. No remnants from the
previous iteration. Sounds like your description says we get a hodgepodge, I
will have to try it out this afternoon. Thanks.

Brad Velander.

Lead PCB Designer
Norsat International Inc.
Microwave Products
Tel   (604) 292-9089 (direct line)
Fax  (604) 292-9010

Check out our fall promotion at Limited quantities. Sale
ends December 24, 2002.
Contact your Account Manager or call 1-800-NII-4LNB or email

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Reagan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:03 PM
> To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] 10 best options I want
> Importance: High
> Brad,
> Start out with a shematic you already finished.  lets say the 
> schematic, had
> an SN74LS04 with  one footprint assigned to in a LS schematic 
> lib.  The
> footprint for this part was named  SOIC14.  Now change SOIC14 
> to something
> like SOIC-14,  update the schematic from the lib.  ( or 
> globally change
> SOIC14 to SOIC-14 in schematic) .  When you look at the 
> footprints for this
> part on the schematic,  now it will still have the old SOIC14 
> along with
> SOIC-14 as a second choice.  I didnt follow schematic bugs 
> before, I am sure
> this had been reported long ago.
> sounds like it might be fixed,  this was really important for us
> Mike Reagan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to