kicad-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Re: Library work and project librarian?
> --- In kicad-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@...> wrote:
>> Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>>> Mateusz wrote:
>>>>> Could you tell me how this "tags" will be\are implemented in .lib files? Do you need a special tool to add key words, or can it be done via library editor?
>>>> When the component library editor saves a component library, two files
>>>> are created. The .lib file contains the information about how to draw
>>>> the components, default field values, aliases, etc. The .dcm file
>>>> contains documentation for each component and component aliases for a
>>> I thought I remembered a discussion about removing the dcm files, or
>>> putting that info into the other file.
>>> Am I imagining this discussion? I honestly cannot remember for sure,
>>> but I thought Jean-Pierre was OK with removing the dcm files. I think
>>> long term having to marry two files together may eventually get in our
>>> way and be cumbersome.
> As a casual user, I didn't even realize what the .dcm files were for. I just assumed that the .lib was all I needed to share with my friends. I'm a fan of merging the two, if for nothing else than preventing dumb users like myself from doing damage.
Technically, you only need the .lib file to edit the components and add
them to your schematic. You just won't have any of the document strings
that go along with it. Currently, if the .dcm file is not present,
Kicad fails silently. Maybe I should add a warning to the library
parser if the .dcm is not present. I just personally dislike nag ware.
>> These are separate discussions. I discussed merging the two files as
>> part of the ongoing improvements to the component library object. I
>> have been slowly adding the base code required to accomplish this in an
>> unobtrusive manor as possible. When I discussed this with JP, there was
>> no talk about the library improvements currently being discussed. I am
>> perfectly fine with not merging them if the proposed library clean ups
>> will make the .lib file too unwieldy. Currently the .dcm files really
>> don't have much information in them. If the folks working on the
>> library improvements add a lot of additional documentation to the .dcm
>> files then your concerns may be valid. I was thinking primarily from a
>> developer point of view of have to maintain a separate parser for the
>> .dcm files. If we choose not to merge them, I will update the file
>> format documentation.
>>> But I just want to make sure we are not making a decision by not making one.
> Yahoo! Groups Links