Mail Archives: geda-help/2014/04/09/07:09:29
On 14-04-09 12:21 AM, gedah AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> [ ... ]
> Most probably gsch2pcb didn't find your LME symbol and footprint.
> There are search paths where it looks for those and there are multiple
> ways changing them. The ones I know about:
>
> 1. I've built my own sym and fp libs and configured gsch2pcb using
> ~/.gEDA/gafrc (symbol paths as "component-library") and
> ~/.gEDA/gsch2pcb (footprint path as "elements-dir") to point to my
> local svn checkout of my lib. Useful if you plan to maintain your libs.
BINGO!!! That seems to have been the problem!! However, I just
added the ~/.gEDA/gafrc (with the same component-library line from
the gschemrc --- I actually did cp gschemrc gafrc and removed the
other two lines for the color scheme and the log window "later").
For the ~/.gEDA/gsch2pcb file (which, BTW, did you mean
gsch2pcbrc?), I guess I didn't need it because I copied all the
footprints to the /usr/share/.... directories.
BTW, Vladimir: yes, it was just a typo when writing the e-mail; the
file was indeed called ~/.gEDA/gschemrc
> 4. in theory this works, but I don't recommend doing this: you could
> just copy our footprint and symbol to the default lib,
> /usr/share/pcb/newlib and /usr/share/gEDA/sym on Debian (and probably on
> Ubuntu as well). This is probably the quickest but dirtiest solution;
> all tools would find your files without extra configuration but your
> system will be a mess and maintaining/copying your (part of the)
> fp/sym library would be hard.
I did that, even though yes, I was clear on the inconveniences.
I had later found out the configuration trick to avoid the above
for the symbol files, but not for the footprints. I will try the
elements-dir trick you mention above. BTW, should I add this
elements-dir line to gafrc as well? (I guess the schematic editor
does not need to locate the FP files, but both gsch2pcb *and*
PCB Editor need to know where to look, right?)
> Once this si done and you repeat the gsch2pcb step, you should see
> the following differences in the output:
> [ ... ]
It actually listed the custom and built-in components separately:
> Done processing. Work performed:
> 1 file elements and 3 m4 elements added to nada-LME49811.pcb.
But yes, U1 now shows up, and the rat nets do include the
connections to U1 --- yay!!
Curious detail: when I hover over the U1 pins and type D, it now
shows *the name* of the pin (nice!!!) --- when I tried the other
time (at some point in time, U1's footprint was showing, but the
rat nets for it were not), it showed *pin numbers*.
Curious/odd detail: if I now do Autoroute selected rats, then the
rat lines disappear; however, if I manually route, they don't.
Is this normal? Is there a way to make it hide the rat lines that
have been routed? (I can hide them *all*, but I would like to
be able to see the rat lines that have not been routed)
> [ ... ] Also that GUI gsch2pcb wrapper may have done something strange
> that could interfere
Could be. However, seeing that I did have a configuration problem
and that the command-line tool was also failing, I see no reason to
suspect the GUI tool in my case. I guess next I'll try re-doping the
workflow with that one (after having fixed the configuration issue).
Thank you so much!! This is *nice* !!!! I was already looking at
the possibility of doing the PCB *fully manually*, which is not the
end of the world, but still, this workflow starting with a schematic
is sooooo much nicer and more reliable!!!
Thanks again, and thanks Vladimir also for your message pointing
out the problem!!
Carlos
--
- Raw text -