← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

Re: Part, Module, Package reorganization.


On 01/23/2011 10:03 AM, Phinitnan Chanasabaeng wrote:
> Hello,
> After following the mailing list for a while, the new library &
> distribution system is on going (thanks to Dick and Wayne), it would be
> good if this subject is discussed again. In my point of view, what kicad
> lacks is part (including module, package)'s consistency such as naming
> scheme in both part and package, pin name & number scheme (especially, 2 &
> 3 pin's part), category organization and removal of duplicated parts. I
> think if they are organized in a more consistant way, it will be easier
> for other contributors to share their parts (It seems to me that most of
> us create & use our own parts without sharing that much) and make kicad
> more professional. And if possible, I'd like to volunteer for this.
> Because this is the only thing I can contribute to kicad for now.
> What is your opinion?
> Tony

The new distributed schematic part and schematic library system should give
you the power to contribute anything you would like to contribute to
eeschema libraries, including:

*) naming policies

*) physical location of the libraries.

*) extra properties, which can pull in information you want to incorporate
into a part.

Your work could become the new standard Kicad library if you want it to be,
or one of several.  My work intends to expand choice, not enforce policy. 
Policy is left to the library maintainers, and if you chose to be one, then
you get to set policy for that library.    Expanding choice is tantamount to
enabling competition.

There will soon no longer be a need to think that you have to "get your
library into the project".  That is not a requirement with the distributed
library manager.  If you make your library exceptional, and put it where the
distributed library manager can find it, then you win customers.  Oops,
users.  It is just that simple.

I envision the day where the core Kicad project itself has little or nothing
to do with library maintenance.  Think about that for awhile please.

With regards to PCBNEW's so called libraries (assuming we even want to
re-use that noun, 'library'), I have nothing to say at this time.  Any
conversation should take place:

1) after defining some terms, and
2) at a point in time where we have someone ready and skilled enough to do
some actual re-design. 

I am certainly not in a position to do any work over there, since I am
working on eeschema.  And the terms have not been defined well enough to
have any conversation, IMO.  We cannot even agree on the difference between
a footprint and a module.  There is still time for that in the future
though.  And much will be learned from doing all the Sweet work, some of
which can be transferred forward.  In general it is a larger task and harder
to get right.


Follow ups