X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From:	paubert AT iram DOT es
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:43:18 +0200
From:	Gabriel Paubert <paubert AT iram DOT es>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] [PATCH] Allow to create metric Gerber and drill
	files, hopefully final version.
Message-ID:	<20120710004318.GA28800@visitor2.iram.es>
References:	<20120703140236 DOT GA12646 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
	<CAKakQcdTgG6E2h+UgWoh-ujP6vFDH=voY-PBJR3OFG2awqL0_A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20120705101614 DOT GA19974 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
	<20120706202633 DOT GA28355 AT malakian DOT lan>
	<20120706213340 DOT GA30622 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
	<20120707104156 DOT 17641 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<20120708042719 DOT GE1637 AT malakian DOT lan>
	<20120709224559 DOT GB4355 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
	<20120709234535 DOT GD23449 AT malakian DOT lan>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20120709234535.GD23449@malakian.lan>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-SPF-Received:	2
X-Spamina-Bogosity:	Unsure
X-Spam-Score:	-4.4 (----)
X-Spam-Report:	Content analysis details: (-4.4 points)
	pts rule name description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
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

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:45:35PM -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:45:59AM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks for pointing this out, I completely missed it, but I think 
> > that they point to the wrong 0 when looking at the source. 
> >
> 
> Oh, good catch!
>  
> > Corrected in the following, with a fix for octogonal apertures
> > in which I did a mistake and ended up with two metric conversion
> > specifications. Note that I have touched a bit the whitespace at
> > the beginning of the comments so that they start with a tab like
> > the surrounding code lines.
> >
> 
> Can you elaborate on this a bit? Specifically, do we need a new
> test case to check on this (since our existing ones apparently
> did not catch the bug)?

Maybe, but I don't know how popular octogonal pads are. It seems 
to be a very specific feature of PCB, which may be useful for home 
etching, but subcontracting small PCB runs has become so cheap!

The only time I tried to use octogonal pads, the photoplotter of my
PCB manufacturer produced garbage, so I never use them.

[Testing PCB]

Ok, it seems the bug is not actually a bug since octogonal pads
are procuded as polygons in Gerber output. I suspect that the
OCTOGONAL case in aperture definitions is dead code.

> 
> > 
> > The fact that imperial Gerber have 2 orders or magnitude better
> > resolution than the associated drill is a problem (25.4µm versus
> > 0.254µm). At least metric gives micrometer resolution for both. 
> >
> 
> Is this a problem with the spec, or our implementation?

Our implementation, for losing the last digit. This causes visible
centering problem in the smallest vias, and is a regression from
earlier revisions.

	Gabriel

- Raw text -