Re: gEDA-user: wasteful for all gEDA users to be doing footprintlibraries separately

["Mark Rages" <markrages-atMUNGEDgmail_dot_com>]

On 2/13/07, john@ecosensory.com <john@ecosensory.com> wrote:
> Mark Rages wrote:
>
> > It seems wasteful for all gEDA users to be doing this.
>
> (I also realize that footprint library
> > maintenance is hard work, and I'm not volunteering.)
> We've talked of ways to set up some hard system that helps
> raise the trustworthiness of footprints.  Would you please review the past
> archives on it and suggest some new ideas?
> Most of the ideas are about checklists that people sign when they do a test like
> send a board to fab and assemble it successfully.
> Another step to verifying a footprint is comparing against the datasheet package
> drawing somehow.
>
> It gets tricky with surface mount parts where hot air reflow might work
> differently and best use a different pad shape than IR reflow assembly.
>
> Make a specific suggestion.  It won't go ignored here.
>
> John G
>

My suggestion was in the other message:

  "Yes, if there are errors, there should be a bug filed in the tracker
  at pcb.sf.net.   That's what I did when I encountered footprint bugs,
  and they were fixed quickly.  So maybe rather than a heroic effort to
  proofread all the footprints, we should encourage users to file bugs
  on them if they find a problem.  Then the offending footprints can be
  fixed or removed."

I have more ideas.  I'll post again when they are more fully formed.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
-- 
You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one.
  - fortune cookie


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