Re: gEDA: Component Packages and PCB Land Pattern - naming Conventions

[Ales Hvezda <ahvezda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[ Ales here, I'm reposting this since majordomo didn't recognize the
  e-mail as being subscribed to the geda-dev/geda-user mailinglist.  ]

-- Cut here --
Delivery-Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:46:14 -0500
From: Rick Munden <munden@xxxxxxxxxx>

I agree entirely with Magnus.  I too have looked at using gEDA within my 
company but the lack of a robust library structure made it unsuitable.

Rick Munden


Magnus Danielson wrote:
> From: "Timmerman, LJH" <bert.timmerman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: gEDA: Component Packages and PCB Land Pattern - naming Conven tions
> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:49:39 +0100 
> Message-ID: <07E938CF7687334B9E62D9346FA229E154B813@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>>Hi Steve,
>>
>>IMHO the gschem symbol mechanism lacks a few features.
>>
>>A couple of them are listed in your mail below, and some are even more
>>fundamental as I see them.
>>
>>For instance:
>>
>>[Fundamental] A lot of [CMOS, TTL] components are available in SMD and in
>>through-hole packages --> their pin nummbering is not allways identical.
>>It's not practical to have two or more sets of symbols. This should be
>>solved at the attribute level (pins) if possible, for their graphical
>>representation is identical.
> 
> 
> The actual problem is that too much is tied to "symbol". It doesn't scale well
> into the modern world.
> 
> 
>>[Fundamental] The visible name of the package should be implemented as an
>>attribute, that is [7400, 74S00, 74LS00, ...].
> 
> 
> You need to indicate Speedgrade, Temperature-range, Package for most things.
> There is a number of specialized things like Pb-free, avionics/space approval
> etc. etc.
> 
> Once you actually have that, you need to get the ACTUAL ordering number, which
> differs from different vendors. Also, alternative stuffing both in family and
> from different vendors comes into play.
> 
> The actual ordering number is even more complex, since it will depend on which
> delivery form you buy a whole bunch of these... tape, tablett or whatever.
> 
> Depending on how large design one is making, the work-flow becomes quite
> different. For a larger design, choosing all the details at a singular moment
> in time becomes hard, and recycling that process becomes more and more
> expensive the larger design there is.
> 
> Moving away from that kind of hard-select and rather select function, device,
> speedgrade/package/component and finaly delivery form is a better way to do it.
> 
> Choosing a "symbol" is only representing the first step. Pin-numbers come
> further down the line.
> 
> But then, I've been down this road before with no succsess. I've been stating
> this many times here. I can't see a chance of gEDA being used as a tool in my
> company ever as a result, since it will not match our most basic needs. I am
> sure many will enjoy it for other projects thought, but if you want to aim for
> prime-time you need to address the issues we are facing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Magnus