| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Patrick wrote:
--- In kicad-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Mateusz" <komorkiewicz@...> wrote: > > The most natural option would be: > > file name -> company name > component name -> datasheet name (in my opinion small letters + numbers without spaces or '-' ) > > the only problem is that it would lead to very big files for some companies (Xilinx, Freescale etc.) > > so maybe we should add name of family: > > company-base.lib (eg. analog-base.lib, atmel-base.lib) -> for devices without family > > company-family_name.lib (eg. analog-adc.lib, atmel-avr.lib) -> for devices whit family
This seems good. Deciding how many sub-levels we want is somewhat difficult. For FPGAs one lib for every family would be good as old generation libraries would stay intact as new stuff is added. Like xilinx-virtex5 and xilinx-virtex6.
But a lot of components have second (or third, or even fourth or fifth) sources. Sure, for some specialty items, like FPGAs, looking up Xilinx or Altera first might make sense, but not necessarily for glue logic, op amps, regulators. DB25 connectors, etc.
Glue logic and general opamps, connectors etc. sould use just _one_ schematic symbol for _all_ variants. The details should be added at cvpcb stage or while editing the schematic, by pull down menu or something. Otherwise we end up making incredibly large library. Heavy symbol way may be easier to implement, but it's no way smart. Now it seems that Jean-Pierre may have thought that when defining separate .dcm system. Could you Jean-Pierre comment on light vs heavy symbol system and your ideas from the past decisions?
I'm definitely pushing the light way. GEDA guys have some on the subjet too (there are better threads somewhere):
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Jun-2005/msg00011.html http://www.seul.org/pipermail/geda-user/2007-December/009458.html -Vesa
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
