Re: gEDA-dev: footprint cleanup

[Dan McMahill <dan-at-NOSPAMmcmahill_dot_net>]

Dan McMahill wrote:
> 
> I wrote a script which goes through all of the m4lib footprints and 
> instantiates them one at a time.  There are currently no m4 syntax 
> errors and in the generated footprints there are 28 with pcb syntax 
> errors.  This is out of 2039 total (1.37 %).  Note that this doesn't 
> mean all of the footprints have the correct dimensions, just that most 
> of them can be loaded by pcb.
> 
> I'm planning on doing some cleanup to either fix or remove the 28 which 
> have pcb syntax errors.  Currently the ones with errors are:



> ACYmP -- polarized axial lead part with pin-to-pin spacing of 'm'
> RCYmP -- polarized radial lead part with pin-to-pin spacing of 'm'
> BREm  -- bottom lead rectangular part with pin-to-pin spacing of 'm'
> 
> and one other which I will delete.




> http://landpatterns.ipc.org/IPC-7351Table3-15September2005.pdf has 
> naming conventions for surface mount.
> 
> Unless someone knows of a real standard for these through hold 
> footprints I'd suggest we change to:

It was pointed out to me that while the above pdf doesn't have standards
for naming the above package types, this document does:

http://pcblibraries.com/resources/files/IPC-7351/IPC-7351A%20&%20PCBL%20Land%20Pattern%20Naming%20Convention.zip

So, consider ACYm{,P}, RCYm{,P}, and BREm to be obsolete.  I'll be
removing those shortly and putting in place some which follow the
conventions in the above document.


-Dan



_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev