X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:00:56 -0400
Message-Id: <201308301800.r7UI0u4x002742@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <5220DC53.3000601@sonic.net> (message from Dave Curtis on Fri, 30
	Aug 2013 10:54:27 -0700)
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>
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


> OK, perhaps I had a memory fade. I thought this (trailing lowercase
> refdes on slots) used to work?  My memory is likely faulty
> here. I'll go try that.

It's used so rarely that I hate to say what should or shouldn't work.
I avoid them, using the same "U4" for each slot, because I know *that*
works.

> > 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.