X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:55:42 +0100 (CET) X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv To: "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu" From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu Subject: Re: [geda-user] Blind/buried vias, padstack In-Reply-To: <20160118113633.594d1406d3ee58af7736acb8@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20160118093035 DOT 7ecd3b5ee5f5d3ae1e8dc91a AT gmail DOT com> <20160118113633 DOT 594d1406d3ee58af7736acb8 AT gmail DOT com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >> >>> If there is a quick fix for blind/buried vias without change of file format I think this is a good solution right now. >>> >>> I however think it is good with a discussion of a more general mechanism for via/pin/pad and in particular possibility with a library of these for different package types. Even though there are cases then a more general mechanism is needed I think old style maybe with some modifications could be kept as a short hand notation. A library of vis/pin/pad is especially useful then adding new footprints and then small adjustments are needed. >> >> If there's enough developer resource available for PCB, a full redesign of >> the related internal structures is a good idea IMO. Looking at the >> history of such big refactorings, I am a bit pessimist about whether PCB >> really has enough resources to finish such an effort in reasonable time. >> Let's hope I'm wrong. > > I think it would be good if angles are kept instead of line lengths then moving lines in rubber band mode but have to decided to look at clearance right now. > > Right now it is about figuring out what would be need to create a really good layout program which should be convenient to work with. > > What do you think about the idea with possibility to create of via/pin/pad with arbitrary drawing primitives on any layer? > A short hand notation for the most common tasks similar as pin/pad today? > To put via/pin/pad in a library with folders for different package types? > Possibility to use pin/pad from library then creating a footprints different sizes? > Store a local copy but possibility to update from library? > Possibility of local change on single pin if necessary? > Cut out on any layer with the ordinary drawing primitives available today? > Cutout in layers above footprint to indicate size of component? These are nice things, but they need a lot of effort. As I said, I don't plan big refactoring of the data model in pcb-rnd. Some of these could be done extending the current code, but unless I see there's actual need, I won't start on any of them. From all you listed above the only feature I sometimes need is different pin shape per layer, but even that one is very marginal and I usually just work it around.