X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=5CDx94CDTgro39i1mBS7hCWGWg8gVIdZLjAyDNIfVQ8=; b=uDtjYJ7QItBz9iGndA8mge491NIbrIMYHaiWQU4+U0fpgPyS6Bf6rotMErXSN361HM 6yQFUKeN1ugiFouNei9TTmBmZp5Hltse3xKp473nKR2oOk39Evz40oE+Em1B63VASjw9 M5MRFZ7vSuLfqfRm8/qu6aw7Mw059t914atyW+TZtLR4wKJItkM652wqePwG5JdQ2H0o 2dEJEMiuVV7F5bNH8Cdb9d4oin6gFdwRMptSsdGSVAzzhbWxMOINWF5Fk6+hlL4XsTnF T2lpBKwbjL9KnU8NoL2nWHqyFJrjJNtLikp2DDWBQmA6iGtnuRFgTi3FEBs6WZNvoHQb DMTg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.92.67 with SMTP id ck3mr1100641igb.93.1440491225986; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:27:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201508250312.t7P3CIUG027159@envy.delorie.com> References: <20150824223846 DOT 0ba61ba7 AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <201508250312 DOT t7P3CIUG027159 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:27:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] pcb file format From: "Levente (leventelist AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: gEDA User Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ffbabc5d3bc68051e1e7fcd 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 --e89a8ffbabc5d3bc68051e1e7fcd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Okay. I want to clarify one thing. I have full respect for gEDA developers. I have made lots of boards with gEDA. But I think we have to move on. AFAIK in footprints, one can not have silkscreen ploygons. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:12 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > I think (DJ is the authority here) our current file architecture does > > not do ovals > > We do round-ended rectangles (i.e. for tssop pads), square and round, > and octagons. > > > > With this data format, one can define arbitrary footprints. No > restrictions > > > like "no silkscreen polygons". > > > > To be fair to DJ and the other authors those are not arbitrary. Folks > > just kind of coded themselves into a corner. > > And we do have silkscreen polygons ;-) > --e89a8ffbabc5d3bc68051e1e7fcd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Okay. I want to clarify one thing. I have full r= espect for gEDA developers. I have made lots of boards with gEDA.

But I think we have to move on.

AFAIK in footprints, one c= an not have silkscreen ploygons.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:12 AM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delo= rie.com> wrote:

> I think (DJ is the authority here) our current file architecture does<= br> > not do ovals

We do round-ended rectangles (i.e. for tssop pads), square and round= ,
and octagons.

> > With this data format, one can define arbitrary footprints. No re= strictions
> > like "no silkscreen polygons".
>
> To be fair to DJ and the other authors those are not arbitrary. Folks<= br> > just kind of coded themselves into a corner.

And we do have silkscreen polygons ;-)

--e89a8ffbabc5d3bc68051e1e7fcd--