X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <5220E266.7090006@sonic.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:20:22 -0700
From: Dave Curtis <davecurtis AT sonic DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
CC: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gsch2pcb -- remind me how it works
References: <5220D115 DOT 2080600 AT sonic DOT net> <201308301741 DOT r7UHfbNj001647 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <5220DC53 DOT 3000601 AT sonic DOT net> <201308301800 DOT r7UI0u4x002742 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <201308301800.r7UI0u4x002742@envy.delorie.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 08/30/2013 11:00 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> Assigning a footprint to each slot is OK as long as they're the same.
>>> If they're different, it's undefined which one "wins".
>> By 'OK' I assume you also mean 'not necessary', although I'm half-way
>> through a quick experiment and it looks like gsch2pcb throws warnings in
>> that case...
> I vaguely recall a discussion about it some time back.  I don't recall
> what the outcome was.  I think if two slots for the same component
> have the same footprint=, that should be ok, and if the latest
> gsch2pcb complains (it's ok, even good, to complain if they have
> different footprint=) then it's probably a bug.
>
Actually I should clarify... the experiment I tried was:
-slot 1 has a footprint attr
-slot 2 has no footprint attr

gsch2pcb seems to throw a warning.

I didn't not try conflicting footprints on slots.  I *hope* that I'd see 
a complaint :)

-dave