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]" <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:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1601181152210.9035@igor2priv>
References:	<20160118093035 DOT 7ecd3b5ee5f5d3ae1e8dc91a AT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1601181056200 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <20160118113633 DOT 594d1406d3ee58af7736acb8 AT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version:	1.0
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, 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.

- Raw text -