On Apr 27, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Mike Bushroe wrote: > Not because of the bugs I ran into but since choosing a footprint is > a difficult process in it self I was longing for a footprint > browser.
My personal view is that schematics should use the conventions in the gEDA documentation: http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:pcb_footprint_naming_conventions These refer to the device, not the pattern of copper on the board. The pattern of copper corresponding to a given device footprint should be chosen in the layout process, because it depends (like other layout parameters) on the manufacturing processes. A database-driven tool that maps device footprints into layout footprints would be useful. We could have databases for various requirement sets here. Keeping the responsibility for this out of gschem avoids unnecessary complication and facilitates design reuse: the schematic should be as free as possible from dependencies on the layout and manufacturing processes. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
