← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

Re: library structure


On Sep 24, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> Inheritance.  hmmm.  Why not just *copy* symbol by symbol and make each
>> copied symbol into a part-specific component in a new project specific
>> library.
> I agree. More simple to use and less complex to implement, can't be
> a bad thing :D
>> But we are moving in the right direction by really thinking about what
>> we do.   The heavy library is a wish, I don't think anybody will ever be
>> able to keep up with the new stuff hitting the market.  It is way too
> It simply can't exist, not even the big vendor can do this (well, maybe
> a vendor which lives selling libraries). And anyway (excluding stuff
> with more than 80 pins) you draw a part in 15 minutes when you need it.
> Given the 'thinking time' I need to properly use some component, drawing
> the symbol is a small period of time (exercise: design a power supply
> and tell me what % of the time you lost drawing the switcher IC:D)
> For footprints (packages) that's another thing, but, excluding some
> exotic component (like DirectFETs and PowerSOs) these are JEDECed anyway
> and can be dynamically generated.
>> A simpler set of ambitions/goals is to simply get the parts correct that
>> you intend to use on a specific board.  And I even struggle with that.
> I'm curious, why are you struggling?
>> Is there any value in having a project specific library that is more
>> tightly bound to the project?  Or is a personal library good enough?  I
> For me no... When I need a component that's not already in a library
> I simply draw it and put in the right system library. So in the next
> board I can use it: I never encountered a component *only* for a board,
> and since my assembly facility have to stock it for production it's
> better to reuse it for the next projects too, if possible.

I would be very happy with an export function, doing: Export all used components into a project library.
This way I can send the schematics on to the next person and (s)he can adjust where needed, without having to look for some components/footprint differences.
Of course, its export, so the component would still live in the system library to be re-used.

>> actually think it might be worth discussing putting a project specific
>> library *within* the project, say for example within the schematic.
>> This fully embraces the use case behavior.  It also centralizes the
>> place where you might fill in the things needed to make a good BOM.
>> Each unique part is in there, and then each unique part can be
>> instantiated from there into the schematic and it's reference designator
>> changed, nothing more.
> Technically there would be no need for 'libraries' since anyway they're
> searched in order. You could just build a big database with *all* the
> stuff inside (and a good search facility): that's what orcad's CIM does
> IIRC. Libraries are for browsing, not searching IMHO.


Follow ups