[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-dev: footprint cleanup
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev