gEDA-dev: footprint cleanup

[Peter TB Brett]

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 00:09, John Luciani wrote:
> On 8/28/06, Peter TB Brett <peter at peter-b.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree with Dan on this. Running m4 at compile time or 'make dist' time
> will remove a common newbie problem --- two methods to retrieve a footprint
> in PCB. 

The common newbie problem is not having two methods to retrieve a footprint.  
The common newbie problem is having two methods to retrieve a footprint *and* 
being totally unclear about the differences between them.  I think you're 
trying to fix the wrong problem.

> After m4 is run and all of the footprints are in a directory (or
> tree) a user can browse the directory. With IPC7351-like naming it is easy
> to find which footprint you want. (I usually pick footprints using dired
> mode in EMACS). 
>
> > Now that would be user-friendly *and* flexible.  Although perhaps it
> > would be necessary to migrate away from M4.

> It is not necessary to change tools.
>
> * Pick your favorite tool that will output newlib format files.
> * Write your footprint generator
> * Run the generator and copy your newlib files to the footprint directory.

At the moment, when the user can't find the particular M4 footprint variation 
he needs in the library list, he doesn't know about the fact that M4 
generates the footprints so he goes and laboriously makes a newlib footprint 
or writes his own generator.

Under your proposal, when the user can't find the particular M4 footprint 
variation he needs in the library list, he can't get M4 to generate a new 
footprint so he goes and laboriously makes a newlib footprint or writes his 
own generator.

Fine, running M4 at make dist time makes sense for a few most-commonly-used 
footprints.  But for crying out loud *don't* remove the ability to generate 
footprints on the fly.  Just make it slightly less opaque!

Case in point: I've just discovered a quick and easy way to use M4 to make the 
footprint for a giant axial capacitor (thanks Dan).  Under your proposed 
system, I'd have to go and make the footprint myself, probably by digging 
around in the PCB source tree for M4 files.  It looks to me like what you 
guys want to do *removes* useful flexibility.

On the other hand, yes, many of the footprints currently in the M4 library are 
eminently suitable to being moved into newlib, because the generators that 
create them aren't particularly flexible (I think specifically of the PCI 
connector footprints).

I agree that the way the PCB footprint libraries work at the moment are really 
pretty impenetrable and user-unfriendly.  But *please* don't throw the baby 
out with the bathwater!

Peter

-- 
Fisher Society publicity officer            http://tinyurl.com/o39w2
CUSBC novices, match and league secretary   http://tinyurl.com/mwrc9
Quake II build tools maintainer             http://tinyurl.com/fkldd

v3sw6YChw7$ln3pr6$ck3ma8u7+Lw3+2m0l7Ci6e4+8t4Gb8en6g6Pa2Xs5Mr4p4
  hackerkey.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.seul.org/pipermail/geda-dev/attachments/20060829/aeb57dc4/attachment.pgp