X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition
         :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=18zHUq5wTmWoCyez87hdPsjjeMvveua+99v5tdiAsI8=;
        b=SwSixwuFaEnqmi0r/DY8CSN+bsjNkPwKIKIiudvQm2Ia11uzSh0kyZCi957TUqXU+s
         M4nYfk7ude3ffgAxv0KK7HXpOWgwYHRxa9LIr+DPKv5+3wjabHgZb8L83iVUbLdIhZQO
         Sfcn0XcYmDv2AxLeAoDm/T/zmwlVyHLzuuu2uWuKOIEWHb3qzyh2kU7MgJHKLe+l0Y3N
         iQB0ovaQXs9BMdXWy3PWNd1M2VxV6SeARRRc8TjK/GwRJgshB7/dlvxPnGDcIO2zztwX
         JQD+ckrMjQJ22Og4CA5DXFfE+9RwgzIZOr2VBgkl7GbIr5Noxf4e1xR9WGVy3iTNwfN8
         CimA==
X-Received: by 10.112.202.69 with SMTP id kg5mr21691883lbc.33.1407148770427;
        Mon, 04 Aug 2014 03:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:39:27 +0400
From: Vladimir Zhbanov <vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Silkscreened component values, mailing list, and
 gEDA development
Message-ID: <20140804103927.GF24580@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <alpine DOT LNX DOT 2 DOT 02 DOT 1406291518550 DOT 30669 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
 <1404129760 DOT 16971 DOT 8 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap>
 <4F3EB7F5-6600-4ED1-9DD0-9333AED9CC9A AT noqsi DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4F3EB7F5-6600-4ED1-9DD0-9333AED9CC9A@noqsi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:50:45AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
> 
> On Jun 30, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Peter Clifton <pcjc2 AT cam DOT ac DOT uk> wrote:
> 
> > I think diode-3.sym agrees with the ACY series diodes in PCB (or at
> > least, has reversed pin 1 & 2 from diode-1.sym.
> 
> Screaming Circuits recently stopped checking diode pin numbers against
> schematics, resulting in a bunch of boards with reversed diodes. They
> told my customer that "the convention" is that cathode is pin 1.
> Perhaps there is an emerging defacto convention, although I’m not
> aware of any standard.

There is at least an IPC standard.
You can find at http://landpatterns.ipc.org/IPC-7351BNamingConvention.pdf.
See p.5 for numbering conventions. They seem to follow IEC standards,
but I'm in doubt since I found no IEC convention on pin numbering yet.

I've also found a link to the full version of the standard. See it at
http://pcbget.ru/Files/Standarts/IPC_7351.pdf. Pin numbering examples
start at page 66.

We could follow that standard in regard to gschem->pcb workflow.

> For SPICE, the anode comes first, so it should have pinseq=1.
> diode-1.sym and diode-2.sym are correct, but diode-3.sym and
> schottky-1.sym are wrong. Many symbol creators don’t seem to
> understand pinseq.

For SPICE, I'm thinking of using a unique attribute, say "pinnode". So we
could part the two workflows - simulation in SPICE and making pcb's.
I believe that in general every particular workflow should lean on its
own attributes in gEDA/gaf.

  Vladimir